1920-04-28

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON BATTLEFIELDS MEMORIALS.

Hon. HL GH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia and Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with the IMr. J. D. Reid.l	v
unanimous consent of the House I beg to move:
That the special committee appointed to consider and report upon the question of what memorials, if any, should be erected on the battlefields of the late war be empowered to send for persons and papers and to report from time to time.
These words vs'ere omitted from the previous motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth Report of the Geographic Board of Canada.-Hon. Arthur Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	What departments of the Government operate their own printing plants, independently of the Department of Public Printing?
2.	How many men are employed in these independent plants?
3.	What were the reasons for establishing a printing plant in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence?
i.	Do these reasons still exist?
5. In view of the reduction in printing of all departments through the operations of the Editorial Committee, does not the Government think the time has arrived when all Parliamentary and Government printing should be done at the Government Printing Bureau?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Civil Service Commission, Justice, Militia and Defence.
Civil Service Commission.
2.	One.
3 and 4. No information.
5. The Commission's printing plant was originally established because it was found that in no other way could the absolute secrecy be secured which is essential in the preparation of the papers set in examinations held by the Civil Service Commission. It would not therefore be in the public interest to return to the practice of having these papers printed in the Government Printing Bureau.
Department of Justice.
1 and 2. A small printing press is kept in the Kingston Penitentiary on which a few

of the forms used in Penitentiary work are printed. The work done is small and is performed by convicts. Not more than two are required and then only intermittently. Department of Militia and Defence.
2.	Nine in the Militia Press until demobilization is completed.
3,	4 and 5. Owing to the large amount of urgent printing necessary during the war, the Departmental Press was established, with the knowledge of the King's Printer. This was simply a war measure, and will be discontinued as soon as demobilization is completed.


INSURANCE ON ROUMANIAN ORDERS.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	With whom was the insurance on the Roumanian orders financed by the Dominion Government and arranged by the Dominion Trade Commission placed?
2.	At what rate was this insurance effected?
3.	In what companies was this insurance effected?
4.	What firms or individuals were asked to compete for this insurance?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	With Messrs. Jones and Procter Bros. Ltd., Toronto.
2.	The marine insurance was effected at from 52.33 cents per $100 to $1.14.89 per $100, the rate varying according to the nature of the goods, class of vessel, port of shipment and season of the year.
3.	In the following companies: Etna Insurance; American Eagle; American; American Merchant; Automobile of Hartford; Bankers and Shippers; Boston; Camden Fire; City of New York; Baltica; Commercial Union; Concordia Fire; Continental; Crawley Dixon and Bowring; Eagle, Star and British Dominion; Federal; Fidelity P'henix Fire; Fireman's Fund; Firemen's; Franklin Fire; Glen Falls; Globe and Rutgers; Great American; Hanover Fire; Home; Hudson; Imperial Marine Transport and Fire; Importers and Exporters; Indemnity Mutual Marine; Jefferson; Liber ty Marine; Marine; Massachusetts F. & M.; National of 'Copenhagen; Niagara Fire; Norske Lloyd; North Atlantic; Northern Assurance; Northwestern National; Norwegian Atlas; Norwegian Marine and Transport; Pacific Marine; Phoenix Assurance Company of London; Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford; Providence Washington; Queensland; Royal Exchange Assurance; Royal; Second Russian; Security; Springfield Fire and Marine; St. Paul Fire and Marine; Standard Marine; Switzerland General; Thames and Mersey
Marine; Union Hispano Americana de Seguiros; Union Insurance of Canton; Washington Marine; Westchester Fire; Western Assurance; Yangtize; Yorkshire.
4.	The firm of Messrs. Jones & Procter Bros., Ltd., wias instructed by the commission to place the 'business with companies registered in Canada, where possible, provided the cost of the insurance did not exceed what it could be obtained for elsewhere, (which naturally means the marine markets of the (world-London and New York-and this practice has been carefully followed.


LOUISEVILLE POSTMISTRESS.
Mr. MAYRAND:: *
1.	Who is the postmaster at Louiseville?
2.	What is the amount paid to him, as salary, commission, or any other form, during last year?
3.	Who is in charge of said post office?
4.	What is his salary?
5.	Is there any other employee there paid by the Government? If so, what is his salary?
6.	How many tons of coal were purchased by the Government for said post office during last year?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Mrs. G. R. Lafonfcaine.
2.	Salary and allowances, $1,310.11.
3.	Mrs. G. R. Lafontaine.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	G. A. Lafontetine, temporary caretaker, salary $45.83 per month.
6.	19 tons, 1,800 pounds at $13 a ton, $258.70.
4*


EDMONTON DEPUTY POSTMASTER.
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: 1.	Has a Deputy Postmaster been appointed to the post office at Edmonton, Alberta?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Where is he from?
4.	On whose recommendation?
5.	Is it a promotion?
6.	Has the principle of merit been observed?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	14th April, 1920.
3.	Postal Department, Winnipeg.
4.	Promoted by the Civil Service Commission on the recommendation of the Chief Post Office Superintendent and with the approval of the Postmaster at Edmonton.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.


SALE OF SCRAP IRON AND STEEL.
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	Have any materials consisting of scrap iron and steel, belonging to the Government at



its shipyard at Sorel, been sold during the month of October, 1918?
2.	If so, in what quantity (in tons)?
3.	At what price per ton?
4.	To whom have these materials been sold?
5.	At what dates were the payments made to the G-overnment?
6.	What is the total amount received by the Government?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes, scrap belonging to the Imperial Government.
2.	39 long tons, 584 lbs.
3.	$25.
4.	Napoleon Latraverse.
5.	14th November, 1919.
6.	$989.84.


MR. CALIXTE VANDAL.
Mr. GEEVAIS:: 1.	Is Calixte Vandal in the employ of the Government at its shipyard at Sorel?
2.	Is it the same Calixte Vandal who was dismissed in 1914 after an inquiry held hy Mr. J. G. Desbarats?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	On what date and under what authority was the Department of Public Information authorized?
2.	How long did it continue?
3.	How many employees did this department have on its pay-roll just prior to the 31st of December 1919. when this department was discontinued, and what was the gross monthly amount of such pay-roll for the month of December, 1919?
4.	How many of these employees were continued in the service of the Government in any capacity and what was the gross amount of the salaries or wages paid to such employees so continued for the month of March, 1920?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	The office of Director of Public Information was created by Order in Council, November 9, 1917. The work was enlarged by Order in Council September 12, 1918.
2.	December 31, 1919.
3.	The staff of the department was gradually reduced during 1919 with a view to closing out its work. In February of that year 25 persons were employed with salaries off $3,101.64 per month. In December when the department was discontinued 13 persons were employed with salaries of $1,862.80 per month.
4.	For the Information Branch of the Department of External Afiairs, 6; salaries for March, $981.66. Employed in other Government services, 4; three of whom are paid

a total of $180 per month. The fourth is employed in the Department of Public Health and classification is not yet available.


BOARD OF COMMERCE.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many investigations have been held by the Board of Commerce since its formation?
2.	How many orders and decisions were given by said board?
3.	How many sentences or fines were imposed?
4.	What are the names of the persons who were so sentenced or fined?
5.	What are the costs of such investigations?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER :: The Board of
Commerce does not make any return of its orders and investigations to any department of the Government, but matters concerned therewith will appear in some form in the report which the Board of Commerce will make to the Government.


THE ARTHUR YOUNG COMPANY.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: ,
1.	What are the names of the so-called experts employed by the Arthur Young Company to classify the employees of the various departments, and which department or departments did each such expert classify?
2.	What are the ages, nationality, educational, and practical qualification, including positions previously held, with special reference to classification work, of each such experts?
3.	(a) What is the cost to the Government for the services of each such expert; (b) what is the cost to the Arthur Young Company of the services of each expert? Have they been paid in Canadian or American money?
4.	How many deputy ministers have approved the classification of their departments?
5.	Does the Arthur Young Company pay an income or business tax in Canada?
6.	In case the difference of opinion respecting classification between the so-called experts' and the Civil Service Commission, whose opinion prevails?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: I. The members of the organization of Arthur Young and Company who have had to do with the classification work on which the ^irm has been retained to assist the Civil Service Commission, include the following: Messrs. Griffenhagen, Myers, Telford, Goodell, Smith, Farwell, Fleming, Grove, Beckman, Robinson, Calkins, Hering, Hoehne, Hersly, Coe, Nelson, Reynolds, Barth, Millerson, Quinn, Nilsen, Bailey, Reber, Gusler, Matthers, Messick and Howard. Some of these gave only a few days, others have given a number of months, to the work.
No departments were classified by individuals. The firm, under the direction

of the Civil Service Commission, assigned its staff representatives to certain occupations, trades, services, or professions, as the exigencies of the work required. All final recommendations regarding classification were then passed upon by the firm's chief representatives and finally by the Civil Service Commission.
2.	The commission is not informed as to the data requested by this question. Before employing the firm, however, it ascertained that this firm had the only staff on the continent engaged in this special work and that it had long experience and high professional standing in the employment field in both public and private services. Members of this same staff have been engaged on the classification of the federal service of the United States, city of Montreal, city of Baltimore, state of Illinois, city of Chicago, county of Cook, city of Milwaukee, county of Milwaukee, state of New Jersey and other public, quasi-public and private enterprises. The commission is notified that this same staff has just been chosen, after a thorough-going investigation as the only one qualified to classify and standardize the service of the city of Philadelphia -a city of over two million.
3.	(a) The Government has not paid for the services of each expert although the fees to the company have been based on the number of days put in by certain members of the staff. Other members of the staff have served on the work without their time being taken into account in the reckoning.
(b) The commission is not informed as to the arrangements between the firm and the members of its organization.
During the first several months of the period of their engagement the firm was paid in American money but since May, 1919, payments have been made in Canadian money. Inasmuch as during this latter period the rate of exchange had been high-at times being more than fifteen per cent-the firm's margin of profit has been absorbed.
4.	Discussions on disputed points in connection with the application of the classification have been held as between the Civil Service Commission and the deputy ministers of seventeen departments, and the commission has made decisions in connection with sixteen of these and has issued official lists of classification titles. In no one of these departments does the deputy minister approve the classification of every position. The commission does not feel that this is proof of inaccurate classification; indeed it feels that if it were to agree with the wishes of every department it would not be fulfilling its duty as expressed in the law, namely, that of providing a uniform standard classification as between departments. .
5.	The commission understands that the firm has followed the rulings of Mr. R. W. Breadner, Commissioner of Taxation, with regard to the filing of income tax returns. These returns are, of course not open to the commission.
6.	The Civil Service Commission made the classification and is now engaged in making the application of the classification. The firm of Arthur Young and Company has been retained to handle the technical work. No official decisions can be or have been made except by the Civil Service Commission.


QUESTION'S PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	How many private, assistant private, joint and associate secretaries have been appointed to members of the Cabinet, chairman or members of commission since 1911, and how much money has been paid to each of them respectively ?
2.	How many private, assistant private, joint and associate secretaries have each of the members of the Cabinet actually?
3.	What are their names and respective salaries?
4.	How many employees in the office of each member of the -Cabinet, their names and respective salaries?


Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: 1.	What was the cost to Canada of the stone building used at 'Calgary as a post office, and which was torn down- eight or nine years ago?
2.	At what date was this post office building torn down?
3.	What did it cost to tear it down and remove the debris?
4.	To whom, and at what price was the material which had been used in the construction of it sold?
5.	How many different departments of the Government occupied the building before it was torn down?
6.	What are the names of the said departments?
7.	From whom has the Government acquired accommodation for the different departments since they vacated the post office building?
8.	How much has the Government paid for fitting up and equipping each of the different buildings to which the different departments transferred from time to time since the post office building was torn down?
9.	How much has been paid for architects' fees and superintendence in respect of the tearing down of the post office and fitting and equipping the other buildings to which the different departments formerly occupying the post office building transferred- as aforesaid?
10.	How much has it cost the different departments to move from building to building from time to time?

11.	What rental has the Government paid from the time the post office building' was torn down to this date to house the different departments that formerly occupied the said post office building?
12.	To whom were such rentals paid?
13.	^ What was the estimated cost of the new building at the time the old building was torn down ?
il4. What is the present estimated cost of the proposed new building?
15.	In what years and in what amounts each year did the Estimates provide for the building of a new post office in Calgary in lieu of the post office which has been torn down as aforesaid?
16.	What rentals are now being paid for the space presently occupied by each of the different departments which formerly occupied the post office building which was torn down as aforesaid, and fo whom are these different rentals being paid?


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVE AT WASHINGTON.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. jS. BELAND (Beauce): I should like to ask whether the Government has any announcement to make in connection with the contemplated representation of Canada at Washington; whether negotiations have been proceeding with either the British or the American Government, and if, so, what point they have reached and whether any definite conclusion has been arrived at?
George Green Foster: These negotiations are proceeding, but it is not possible to make a definite announcement yet.


RELIEF SHIPS TO MAGDALEN ISLANDS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LE.MIEUX: May I ask whether my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) has received any news from Pictou or Souris in the Maritime Provinces as to the movements of the steamer Guide and the steamer Canadian Sealer? The reason I ask is that these steamers are awaited with considerable anxiety by the people of the Magdalen Islands. My hon. friend has probably received some telegrams recently, and I should like to know if he can make any announcement.
Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: In reply to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-


An hon. MEMBER:: And Gaspe.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In reply to the hon. member for Gaspe and for Maisonneuve, I 
would state that the steamer Guide left Pictou at noon to-day for Souris. I expect that the government steamer Canadian Sealer will leave with a cargo for the Magdalen Islands on Friday of this week. We have had considerable difficulty in obtaining a crew for the Sealer, but I believe that that difficulty has now been overcome, and if nothing unforeseen intervenes she will also leave on Friday of this week.


ST. JOHN, N.B. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. OOPP (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I have just received a telegram from the President of the .Great War Veterans' Association in New Brunswick stating that that body has been informed that the district pension office in .St. John is to be demobilized, the intention being that its work shall henceforth be carried on from the office in Halifax. May I inquire of my hon. friend who has charge of the department concerned whether or not this information is correct?


Hon. N. W. ROWELL:: I shall see that inquiries are made and endeavour to give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.


MR. D. B. HANNA AND CANADA STEAMSHIPS LIMITED. .
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Gov-eminent P" In view of the fact that since I made a statement in the House on April 26 that Mr. D. B. Hanna was a director of the Canada Steamships Limited, I have received a large number of inquiries expressing the gravest dismay at such a condition of affairs-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member will have an opportunity to raise this question on the motion to go into Committee of Supply or on the Estimates. The matter to which he refers is apparently not one of great national importance.


William Duff: I must bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I have received so many communications that I should like very much indeed to finish my question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member will finish his question I have no objection, but it is not now in order that he should read a letter.


William Duff: I shall conclude the question, Sir: Is it true that the said D. B. Hanna, President of the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine, during his tenure of that office, was and still is a director of the Canada Steamships Limited?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: Mr. Hanna is not in Toronto, but in view of the fact that he is exceedingly anxious to have his position understood, and as the question is of such importance, I will try to hav'.! it answered to-morrow.



STATUS OF QUESTIONS PASSED AS RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
['I have much pleasure in accepting the suggestion of my hon. friend, and I move that the committee rise and report progress.\nMotion agreed to: progress reported.\nOn the motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House adjourned at 11.24 p.m.\nThursday, April 29, 1920.']
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: I desire to call to the attention of the House to a state of things existing at present which I think should be remedied, and I may put a question to the House as a whole. A moment ago, in answer to a question on the Order Paper which was put to the Government, a statement was submitted which in the ordinary course ought to be incorporated in Hansard. The answer in question, however, was lengthy and the hon. member who had put it said he could dispense with the reading of it, and it was therefore made an order for return, and the return does not appear in Hansard. This procedure is not in accordance with the rule, which provides that when an answer is of any considerable length, the Speaker may, at the request of the Government, direct that it be made an order for return. When the order for return is tabled and an hon. member goes to the office of the Clerk who has the custody of these documents he finds that he cannot remove such an order from the office. If he wants to consult it-and this might very naturally take some time-he has to read it in that office. Is the House going to stand by this decision, that when a return is made to an order hon. members shall be deprived of the opportunity of properly studying it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is
virtually entering into an argument, Which of course he cannot do on the Orders of the Day; nor can he put a question to the House on the Orders of the Day.


Jacques Bureau: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will submit the question to the Cabinet, or better still, to Your Honour, who is the proper authority in the circumstances. May I ask if it is the intention of Your Honour to
prevent hon. members from procuring, for their use and full examination, returns which are laid on the table of the House, without being constrained to sit in the office of the Clerk in order to obtain any information from the return which may be desired?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question which the hon. member has submitted to me is somewhat involved, and at the moment I can only answer in general terms. I shall make a more explicit statement on the point tomorrow. So far as I am aware, the practice which obtains in the office of the Clerk is precisely the same as that which has existed heretofore, and I am not cognizant oi any new instructions having been given to vary that practice. If the ordinary practice has been superseded by fresh instructions, such instructions must have been given without my knowledge, and I shall make ample inquiry into the matter and answer the hon. member more fully to-morrow.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers, I may say, Mr. Speaker, that had I thought that the answer given by the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Sifton) would not appear on Hansard, I would not have intimated my willingness to have its reading dispensed with. I may add that other questions which I have on the Order Paper I shall expect to be dealt with differently, so that the information I seek may appear on the record of the proceedings.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not a question whether the hon. member may require that an answer to any question he puts upon the Order Paper shall be inserted in Hansard if it is considered too lengthy to be read. It is optional with the Government to have such questions stand as orders for returns, and it is within the purview of the Speaker to decide whether, in his judgment, a document is too voluminous to be placed on Hansard. I shall exmine the document in question and see whether it is of such a character as to require its appearing in Hansard.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. SUTHERLAND (Oxford South):: May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a document in the nature of a threat which has been placed on my desk, and copies of which I believe have been placed on the desks of other hon. members? I understand that the distribution in the House

of such documents is contrary to the rules of the House, and I would call attention to the marked copy I have in my hand, bearing this question: " Do you want our vote?" and stating that unless Parliament does certain things its members will not obtain the votes of certain people.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to my attention. This is the first intimation I have had of such a document having been distributed. It is certainly contrary to the practice of the House that documents should be distributed in this way, and I shall inquire into the matter and ensure that a recurrence of this incident shall not take place.


OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill 20 to amend the Opium and Drug Act.^Hon. N. W. Rowell. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was last before the committee it was being considered subsection by subsection. The committee had reached subsection 3 on page 2 of the Bill.


Mr. J. A. STEWART:: Mr. Chairman, I see that last night a certain amendment was proposed, as appears on page 1761 of Hansard. It amends a subsection that has already been passed, but the subsection is a part of the section that has not been disposed of, and I should like to have permission to refer to the license fees mentioned in this amendment. I do this because I think that the amendment as it appears in Hansard was hardly understood by a great many members, and certainly not by myself.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member
would be quite in order, before the clause is finally adopted, in bringing up the question of this amendment for further discussion. I think it might be better, however, to obtain the unanimous consent of the committee to return immediately to subsection 1 for further discussion, and then, when that has been disposed of, return to subsection 3.


John Alexander Stewart: Section 5 (a) subclause 1, as it appears in the Bill provides that there shall be a license fee to be fixed by regulation but not to exceed $25. This amendment, as contained in Hansard of last night, makes a very radical change in that provision of the Bill. As I understand the wording of the amendment, there is to be a fee for each exportation and importation of $5. Jf I properly understand

that provision, it means that for each particular importation there would require to be a special license issued for which there would be charged a fee of $5. That would mean that if a physician were to import $25, or $10 worth, or, in fact, any quantity of one of the drugs referred to in the section, he would have to apply to the department for a license and he would have to pay a fee of $5 for the license. That license would cover the particular transaction for which it was issued and if on The following day he wanted some other of the drugs referred to in the schedule, he would require to apply for another license and pay another fee of $5. It means that under the first provision of this amendment, the number of fees payable by a physician would depend upon the number of separate transactions that he might have during the year. The same thing would apply to the retail druggist. What I submit is that there should either be an annual fee covering the case of all those who import any of the drugs referred to in the se.ction, or a license should be issued on the payment of a nominal fee, or it should be issued without the payment of any fee whatever.
In reference to the second provision-and that is the provision for the payment of the annual license fee of $25-there can be no possible objection. But I submit that the last provision, "for a license for a year for a retail druggist, the sum of $5," does not carry out what the minister had in mind at the time if we are to judge by the remarks made immediately following. The minister states:
Tile amounts mentioned in the' amendment shall be the maximum charges in connection with the respective classes ot licenses issued. As I intimated to the committee last evening, the object in view is to make the Act pay its way, and the intention is simply to impose such fees as will insure a sufficient revenue to provide for the carrying out of its purposes. X think the amendment will meet the objection raised yesterday, that we did not distinguish in this clause between the license fee charged to the large manufacturer and the much smaller fee charged the druggist who manufactures.
What I submit is that the wording of this amendment "for a license for a year for a retail druggist the sum of $5" would make a druggist liable to pay a fee of $5 whether he manufactured or not, and that the amendment as it appears here should be changed to read that "the license for a retail druggist who manufactures." Otherwise, as I submit, all retail druggists would be liable to pay a fee of $5 for the privilege of compounding the prescriptions of physi-

cians. That, I submit, was not the intention at all. The intention was that the druggist who manufactures any of the remedies or preparations permitted under this Act, were not to be liable to pay a fee. But as it stands here, I submit, that every retail druggist doing business would be required to pay an annual fee of $5. This would require to be changed also in reference to the export and import license, because surely it is not intended that every druggist and physician in Canada is to pay $5 every time he makes a separate purchase of any of the drugs referred to in the schedule.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Dealing with the points raised by my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Stewart) in their reverse order, I will first refer to the question of druggists' licenses. My hon. friend will see that it is clause (e) of subsection (2) which requires a license to sell. We, under subsection (3), as 1 propose it should be amended, exempt druggists who do not manufacture from the provisions of clause (e). No druggist who does not manufacture will be required to take out a license. Therefore the license fee provided for in subsection (1) is only applicable to a druggist who is required to take out a license and it is only a druggist who manufactures who is so required. Therefore the situation will be fully met by the amendment that I intend submitting to subsection (3).
In reference to the other point, namely, as to the fee for importing, I would draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact and I think probably his knowledge of the situation will confirm it, that druggists or doctors who import independently are very few indeed. Our experience is that about thirty firms in Canada are importing under the provisions of this Opium and Drug Act. I think that only one application from a doctor has been received since the department has been administering the law. This clause in its practical operation will apply to the large importer. The others will be very few indeed and as we require to keep track of every importation we must have a specific license for importation. Therefore it is hut right that a fee should be imposed for each license issued. My hon. friend will see from the statement I made yesterday that this is the maximum which may be fixed. If the law can be administered at a lower rate, and I think it probably can, these maximum fees will not be charged. But it is the intention to ask, in connection with importers' licenses a fee
for each license issued, and, as I say, some thirty firms are all who during the past year have applied for a license for the purpose of importing.


Mr. BELAND:: That does not apply to preparations which contain some of the drugs listed in the schedule?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that in the amendment of which I gave notice on Friday night it is provided that the Act shall not apply to preparations containing a limited quantity of these drugs. No License is required for the importation or sale of these preparations.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is all right. I see
that a license fee of $5 is asked from a retail druggist for the privilege of manufacturing and selling. Does that apply to every different preparation that he may make?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No retail druggist who
does not desire to engage in manufacture need'not take out a license at all. If he desires to engage in manufacture, the maximum fee we can charge is $5 for all the preparations he may choose to manufacture under the terms of this Act.


John Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
will no doubt appreciate the difficulty an hon. member labours under in following amendments where they come in as thick and as fast as they have in connection with this Bill. So far, these amendments in language exceed the volume of the provisions of the original Bill, and in importance greatly overshadow them. It is very difficult for the ordinary member to follow the amendments when he has not a copy of them before him as the minister has. Having regard to the manner in which these amendments are expressed, I still submit that if my hon. friend does not read into the amendment with respect to the license fee for a retail druggist the words " who manufactures," then when it is all fitted in and the different parts dove-tailed there will be confusion.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think that when my hon. friend sees clause 3 he need fear that there will 'be any confusion. If there should be any we will correct it before the Bill gets the third reading.


John Alexander Stewart: I am quite satisfied.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is quite true these
amendments are by way of exception. My hon. friend himself is somewhat responsible for some of the amendments.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: I would like to point out that in some respects this Bill is going to work a great hardship to the people. I am not speaking for the druggist, the manufacturer or the medical man, but I submit, Sir, that the ordinary people still have some rights and that those rights ought to be preserved. There is not a medical man practising medicine in a rural district that does not know that many of these preparations are household remedies; and, speaking for myself, I have hundreds-yes, thousands of times -prescribed these remedies over the phone to people living fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty miles back in the country, where it was physically impossible for them to get medical attention and who otherwise could not have obtained any Telief from pain and suffering. I am bringing this fact to the attention of the House because I think that probably sometimes those who live in the city, or in a village, where drug stores are handy and where there is a medical man practically at every corner, are losing sight of the fact that many of these drugs "are household remedies. Therefore I think this House ought to act with great deliberation when it proposes to debar ordinary people from buying, for instance,-some tincture of opium to have convenient for medicinal purposes. The present law, I believe, requires the label to contain the name of the drag and the dose according to the age of the child, and the drug is one which to the public means very much indeed. As I understand the Bill, it deprives people of the possibility of buying these preparations except on the prescription of a medical man.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is in
error. The section of which I gave notice and which appears in Friday's Hansard contains a provision that a doctor's prescription shall not be required in the case of preparations containing a limited amount of the drugs referred to in the schedule.


Peter McGibbon: My point is that the limit is so low that the drugs to which I have reference cannot come in under it.
4 Mr. ANDERSON: I would like the minister to say if the fee of $5 applies to the local druggist who puts only a few sample remedies on his counter for sale. Many druggists put up a few simple remedies on their counters for common ailments, but the value of these during the year might not amount to $50. Would these druggists be required to pay the fee?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should think that any man who manufactures and sells these preparations ought to be regarded as a manufacturer. I do not know any other way of arriving at a definition.


Mr. EULER:: It seems to me that more attention should be paid to what has been said by jny hon. friend (IMr. McGibbon).


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the remarks
of the hon. member for Muskoka would have been more in order when discussing the principle of the Bill or upon a later subsection. I cannot see that they are strictly relevant to the subsection under consideration.


William Daum Euler: Am I to be prevented from speaking on the same subject that the hon. member for Muskoka was allowed to speak on?


Georges Henri Boivin: The mere fact that
one hon. member (Mr. McGibbon) has failed to obey the rule does not authorize, all other hon. members of the committee to disregard it.
Mr. BELANlD: May I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment was submitted to the House by the minister who has charge of this Bill on the occasion of the second reading of the measure, which amendment has not yet been considered by the committee; I refer to the amendment to subsection 4 of section 5A. That subsection has yet to be considered by the committee, and my hon. friend (Mr. Euler) can then submit his views in regard to the quantity of narcotic that should be permitted in these preparations. The same opportunity will be available to my hon. friend (Mr. McGibbon) although I must confess that I do not share his views.


Mr. ANDERSON:: In regard to this question of a fee,-on the occasion when this Bill was last considered I understood an amendment was submitted under which a retail druggist who manufactures these simple preparations should not be required to take out a license and pay a fee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No amendment was moved to the Bill, but one was discussed on Friday afternoon. These fees are to be the maximum and not the minimum amount that may be charged.
'Section agreed to.
On subsection three-physicians, veterinary surgeons, dentists and druggists excepted.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The committee will see
that this permits certain exceptions from the requirements of subsection two. When discussing the Bill on the second reading, and when we were previously in committee, I intimated that upon reaching this subsection some provision would be inserted which would require medical practitioners to furnish information as to drugs sold, etc. In order to accomplish this purpose I shall move a new clause as a substitute for subsection (3), but before moving this substitute clause let me explain what is sought to be accomplished by subsection (3) in its present form. As already explained, clause (e) of subsection (2) requires a license in case any sale is made by any person whomsoever. Subsection (3) exempts doctors and druggists from taking out such license. The object of this substitute clause is to give the exemption but at the same time to retain necessary control, and I purpose to accomplish this by the following provision:
The provisions of paragraph (e) of this section shall not apply to a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or any druggist carrying on a bona fide business in a shop or store, who does not manufacture any drugs; but every physician, veter-inerary surgeon, dentist and druggist, pharmacist or chemist shall make to the minister, as and when required, a declaration in the prescribed form, stating that he is engaged in the sale or distribution of opium, morphine, cocaine and their respective salts or derivatives, or otherwise as the case may be.
The latter part of that clause is necessary to enable us to observe the provisions of to enable us to observe the provisions of Article 10 of the International Opium Convention. Clause (b) of that article provides :
That the contracting parties agree to require that all persons engaged in the manufacture, import, sale, distribution or export of morphine, cocaine and their respective salts shall be furnished with a license or permit to engage in these operations, or shall make to the competent authorities an official declaration that they are so engaged.
It is not the intention to require a formal license to be taken out by a physician, dentist, veterinary surgeon or druggist who is not a manufacturer, but in order to carry out the provisions of Article 10 of the International Opium Convention we do provide for their making a declaration with the proper authority setting out whait they are doing in respect to this business.
Clause (f) of subsection 2 requires a record to be kept. In reference to that, I may say that it is not considered necessary for 'the practising physician, the veterinary
surgeon, or the dentist to keep the same detailed record as is required in other cases. Therefore the amended clause provides:
The provisions of paragraph (f) of this section shall not apply to a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, hut every such physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist shall, on request, furnish the minister with any information which he may require under any regulation made under this Act with respect to the drugs received, dispensed, prescribed, given away or distributed by such physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist.
That also is necessary in order to carry out the intention of the Act.
Them the remainder of that clause is as follows:
Any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist neglecting or refusing to make such declaration in the prescribed form, or any physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist neglecting or refusing to give such information so required by the minister, shall he guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to the penalties provided in subsection 2 of this section.	[DOT]
Summarized, the effect of the new subsection (3) is to relieve the classes I have mentioned-the physician, the dentist, the veterinary surgeon, and the non-manufacturing druggist, from taking out a license; but in order to comply with the provisions of ithe International Opium Convention, it requires them to make a declaration as to the character of the business being carried on, if and when required by the minister. And it is not the intention to require the physician, the dentist and the veterinary surgeon to keep the detailed and formal records which are required from the other classes dealing in these drugs, but it is the intention to require them to furnish from time to time as the department may require in reference to such sale.
May I point out to the committee how that may 'arise and may be of importance? Under the licensing law the importer gets a license to import a specific quantity, which license requires him to account for the manner in which he has disposed of that importation. He sells a quantity to a physician and makes his return to the department 'showing how he has disposed of it. If a 'series of returns indicated that a physician was purchasing more of this drug than he could in all human probability require for legitimate purposes, the department might ask him to make a return showing how he had disposed of that drug. As a matter of fact, the department has been following that procedure without any express provision in the law, and I wish

to say tihat the physicians and surgeons of the country have splendidly responded, only one having refused to make a return. This amendment enables the department to call for the information; but it do.es not require .the information to be furnished until called for.


Mr. PEDLOW:: What class of dealers has the minister in contemplation when he refers to "other dealers?" I was under the impression that none other than those named in the Bill would be permitted to deal in drugs of this kind.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All who import these drugs are required to keep a record, and also wholesale and retail druggists.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will druggists who compound physicians' prescriptions be considered manufacturers under the terms of this Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They would not be manufacturers as I understand the meaning of this legislation.


John Alexander Stewart: Paragraph (f) M subsection 2 reads:
Manufactures, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug.
Subsection (3) as it appears in the Bill exempts druggists from the provisions of paragraph (f). It says:
The provisions of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section shall not apply to a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or to a druggist carrying on a bona fide business in a shop or store.
As I understand the amendment which my hon. friend has iust moved, the retail druggist is not exempted from the provisions of paragraph (f). The doctor, the dentist and the veterinary surgeon are exempted, but not the druggist. Surely that is not intended.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Peter McGibbon: (Muskoka): I think it would be a good idea if we were given an opportunity to study these various amendments. I would like to know from what source all these restrictive measures are coming. It seems to me that this is a very meddlesome Bill; one which is going to cause a lot of irritation throughout the country and make a good deal of trouble for all concerned. I do not know why we should disregard the established order of things, especially in the rural districts, and impose any such restrictions. I am absolutely opposed to this eternal restricting of the liberties of the people. What the people want to-day is liberty, but these repressive and restrictive measures are simply irritating everybody. Now it is proposed to pass legislation which will enable you to go into the places of business of the people; to go into doctors' offices and demand to know what they have been doing with their drugs. I do not believe that you can enforce it, because a doctor's practice is necessarily secret and confidential. These repressive measures are altogether out of place, and before this Bill goes any further I would like to get the proposed amendments and study them. Has there been any demand from the public for these restrictive measures? We are supposed to legislate for the people, but my experience in this House _ leads me to think that we are going almost the opposite way. Last year when we were considering a lobster Bill, the lobster canners were brought down and interviewed; then there was a Bill regarding patent medicines, the manufacturers were brought here. Now when we have a Bill affecting the druggists, there is a conference with druggists. I would like to know who is representing the people? I repeat that I am absolutely opposed to these measures of restriction.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Possibly my hon. friend was unable to' be in the House while this Bill was under discussion.


Peter McGibbon: I have-been in the Pensions Committee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend had read Hansard containing the report of the discussion he would not have spoken as he has.


Peter McGibbon: I read it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me repeat one or two facts which have already been stated several times during the course of the discussion. In the first place, quite apart from this legislation, under the provisions of the Ontario Pharmacy Act none of these drugs can be sold by any druggist except on doctor's prescription.


Peter McGibbon: May I say that they are sold every day?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All I have to say is thit they cannot legally be sold without a doctor's prescription. That is one of the provisions of the Ontario Pharmacy Act. Further, the Act relating to opium and drugs, passed by this House in 1911, prohibited the sale of opium and the other drugs mentioned in the schedule except upon a doctor's prescription. This Bill is rendered necessary only by virtue of the provisions of the International Opium Convention settled at the Hague and brought into force by the ratification of the Treaty of Peace.
We are not/ requiring in this
4 p.m. Bill, so far as the particular matters of license and record are concerned, anything that is not required by that convention. Our legislation in that respect does not go nearly so far as the American legislation which is intended to carry out the provisions of the convention; it does not go so far as the legislation of some other countries. During the discussion of the resolution I put on Hansard the terms of the convention. Quite apart from any question of public interest, we are obligated by the terms of this convention, which was approved by the Government in 1914 and which did not go into effect until the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, to put this legislation through.


Peter McGibbon: Does
this International Convention go so far as to prescribe such detailed legislation as sending an inspector to a doctor's office and to druggists' places of business to obtain information as to their sales?
Mr. ROWELL. Let me give one or two of the provisions of the convention. It says:	the contracting powers shall use
their best endeavours to adopt or cause to be adopted the folloA'ing measures:
(a)	To confine the manufacture of morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts to those establishments and premises alone which ha.ve been licensed for the purpose, or to obtain information respecting the establishment and premises in which these drugs are manufactured and to keep a register of them.
In the first place, they cannot be manufactured unless a license is given for the manufacture on a particular premises; or the department may obtain information respecting the establishments in which they are manufactured. We are adopting that alternative.
(b)	To require that all persons engaged in the manufacture, import, sale, distribution, or export of morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts shall be furnished with a license or permit to engage in these operations, or shall make to the competent authorities an official declaration that they are so engaged.
Our legislation simply goes that far. We require a license in certain cases, and in others we require simply a declaration We are simply carrying out as closely as we can the terms of the convention, and are not going any further in that respect.


Mr. AROHAMBAULT:: Is it a fact that the Government appointed an advisory board to the Department of Health?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no advisory
board. There is a Dominion Council of Health, composed of the chief officers of health of all the provinces, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Health, and five other members.


Joseph Archambault: I was informed that there was an advisory board to the department, and that it made a report on this legislation. I. understood that one of the members was Mr. J. W. Lecours, of Montreal.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The gentleman my hon. friend refers to is a member of an advisory board appointed under the Proprietary and Patent Medicine Act to advise on the degree of medication required in drugs having an alcoholic content, to prevent them from being used as beverages.


Joseph Archambault: The board did not make a report on this Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, none whatever.


John Alexander Stewart: In company with a number of the members of this House I was privileged to be present at the interview which the druggists had with the minister and the department early this month. Referring to what my hon. friend from Muskoka said a moment ago, I think it

would be a mistake if the impression were created that there was any objection on the part of either the retail druggists or the pharmaceutical manufacturers to this legislation in its present shape. There is on the part of the wholesale and retail drug trade, as expressed at that interview, the most sincere and genuine desire to cooperate with the Department of Health in the control and regulation of the trade in narcotic drugs. No one appreciates more than those engaged in the trade the splendid work that has already been done by the Department of Health in this connection. I feel that the department will bear me out when I say that since its organization was completed, there has been, with very few exceptions, both on the part of the medical profession and the drug trade throughout Canada the most sincere desire to co-operate. There are a few objections to the amendments as proposed, which those actively interested in the business hope will be removed as the amendments are considered in committee. These objections are more as to form. Substantially the amendments that have already been outlined meet the views and carry out the requests and suggestions of the representatives of the trade who interviewed the minister on the 7th of April.


Mr. OOCRSHUTT:: The minister stated in reply to the hon. member for Muskoka that this legislation was imposed upon us by international obligation, if I understood him correctly.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have accepted an international obligation by joining in the Treaty, and one of the obligations we have accepted under the Treaty is to pass the necessary legislation to give effect to it.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is what I understood the minister to say. If it is found that this Act is unworkable, or oppressive, if it is opposed by a large number of the people who are affected by it, will it be necessary for us to go back to the League of Nations if we want to make amendments to the Act, and say: We made a mistake in regard to this, and we want to be relieved of our obligations? Is legislation respecting our domestic affairs to be forced upon us by international obligation instead of by national or imperial authority? I think that is a very important point, and I should like to know if the legislation mentioned in the Treaty of Peace is going to be obligated upon this country for all time or until we

are relieved of the obligation by the League of Nations which imposed it.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We are citizens of the world.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All I have to say in answer is: This country is tinder obligation to carry out its contracts, the same as any other party who makes one. We have entered into a contract by joining in this convention. If we do not desire to adhere to its terms we would have to withdraw from it in the manner provided in the contract. As long as our legislation keeps within the terms of the convention we have absolute freedom of action.


William Foster Cockshutt: And to amend legislation?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have absolute right to amend anything we like, but we should not violate the terms of the convention so long as we are a party to it.


Mr. FIELDING:: I think the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) has hardly been covered by the minister. If we desire to be relieved of our obligation, what will be the procedure before we can get out?


Peter McGibbon: I never understood that the League of Nations was going to interfere in our domestic affairs, and I think it is a bad principle if we have bound ourselves to something as far-reaching as that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In answer to the question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), which was perhaps involved in the question of my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt), all we have to do is to serve notice denouncing the convention. One year after the notice is served, the convention terminates so far as we are concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: What convention?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The International Opium Convention. We can withdraw at any time we choose by giving the notice required by the convention.


Mr. MANION :: Coming back to the clause under discussion, after this little excursion to the League of Nations. I would like the minister to explain a little more clearly the procedure with regard to reports by medical -men on the request of the Minister of Health. Would it be at all likely, for instance, that the Minister of Health or his deputy would ask medical men throughout the country to make a detailed report upon their uses of morphine, cocaine or opium?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I can only say what probably will be done by referring to what has been done in the past. The department has already been doing what we contemplate doing under these provisions, but has been doing so without legislative authority. So long as the physicians of the country responded voluntarily there was no necessity for any such legislation, but there have been one or two refusals, and therefore it was [DOT]thought well that we should have this authority if we were to carry out the full terms of the convention. What we have been doing in the past is this:	The importer gets his
license. That license specifies the amount that he is entitled to import. It requires him to report to whom he sells the drug and the quantities which he sells to each. That is entirely based upon the theory that these drugs are of such a character that it should be possible to trace them from the time they come into the country until they reach their ultimate destination, in order to see that abuses do not arise. If the return made by the importer, or by the wholesale druggist to whom he sells should indicate that a physician in any section of the country was receiving a quantity of any of these drugs much beyond what under normal conditions he could reasonably or properly use, he would be asked for an explanation as to what it was required for and how he had disposed of it. That is what is contemplated under the provisions of this section.


Mr. FOURNIER:: What is a reasonable amount for a physician to use?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not pretend to pass upon that myself, but the officers know what would be a fair amount.


William Daum Euler: How can the department expect a physician whom they think is dispensing too large a quantity, to make a return when he is not asked to keep records? I understand that the physician is not required to keep a record of the drugs sold.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If a physician prescribes a drug the druggist has a record of the prescription. The department has two records, one furnished by the importer and one kept by the druggist who fills the prescription. You have two facts before you; the fact of the druggist filling an unusual number of prescriptions, or prescriptions in unusually large quantities, and the fact that the physician has 'bought large quantities of which apparently there is no record showing how they have been disposed of. If the quantity is abnormally large-and it is only in cases which clearly
demand an explanation that any one familiar with the business would raise a question-information is required; and what my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Stewart) says is perfectly true. The druggists and physicians of this country have co-operated splendidly with the department in administering the Act, and many of them have expressed their appreciation, in view of their knowledge of the character of these drugs, that the Act was being carefully administered and that efforts were being made to prevent abuses. It is only in rare cases that any trouble has arisen in getting information from either the druggists or the physicians.


William Daum Euler: I have no desire to reflect on the physicians. I have no doubt that ninety-nine out of a hundred of them are perfectly conscientious in the dispensing of drugs, but the point I make is this: The physicians apparently have the power to sell these drugs direct to their patients. If it is found by the department that the quantity of drugs which the physician purchases, say, from a wholesale druggist, is abnormal and there is reason to suspect that in some case a physician is Abusing the privilege of selling drugs-which is conceivable- what means has that physician of satisfying the department as to what he did with the drugs he sold, if he is not required to keep a record.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that, the new clause as drafted requires him to furnish such information as may be required pursuant to regulations to be passed under the Act. Up to this time the department has simply written and asked for the information, and it has so happened that the physicians, with one or two exceptions, have been in a position to furnish it. But, in fairness to the profession, it is contemplated to pass a regulation indicating the character of the information which the physicians may be called upon to furnish in case the department requires information.


William Daum Euler: Can the minister say what will be the nature of that information?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The regulation has not been prepared.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If the physician exceeds the quantity of any drug prescribed by the department will he be liable to penalty under the Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, under subsection (2) of section 5 of the original Act, which I think I read to the committee the other

day in answer to a question asked 'by an hon. member. That subsection provides:
Any physician who signs any prescription or order for the filling of which any drug is required, unless such drug is required) for medicinal purposes or is prescribed for medical treatment of a person who is under professional treatment of such a physician, and any dentist or veterinary surgeon who signs any order for any drug, unless such drug is required) for medicinal purposes in connection with his practice as a dentist or veterinary surgeon, shall be guilty of a criminal offence and shall upon summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding $200 and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That scarcely covers the point I have raised. I have in mind the physician who carries drugs in stock for distribution. If he distributes quantities in excess of the maximum fixed by the department will he be liable to a penalty under the Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He can dispense only in connection with the requirements of his own profession. He has authority to dispose of drugs in connection with his practice, and he can only prescribe for medical purposes; and a dentist or veterinary surgeon can only prescribe any drug that is required for medicinal purposes in connection with his practice. These men have no right to dispose of drugs in any other way.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There are many physicians who compound their own prescriptions, and it is that class I have in mind and not the physician who writes out a prescription to be filled by a Chemist. The Act does not make any provision for the case I have suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 4-liniments, ointments, etc, etc.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to move a new subsection (4) as follows:
That subclause (4) of new section 5A be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
" 4. (a) The provisions of section 5 and of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section shall not apply to the possession, sale or distribution by a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store of preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium, or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroin, or more than one grain of codeine, or any salt or derivative of any of them in one fluid ounce, or, if a solid or semi-solid preparation, in one avoirdupois ounce ; or to liniments, ointments, or other preparations which are prepared for external skin use only, which do not contain cocaine or any of its salts or prepara-

tions, hut every such remedy or preparation as mentioned in this section must contain active medicinal drugs other than narcotics in sufficient proportion to confer upon the preparations or remedy valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the narcotic drugs alone ; Provided, however, that no person shall sell, or offer for sale, any remedy or preparation intended for internal use which contains opium, morphine, heroin or codeine, unless there be printed in a conspicuous place, on an inseparable part of the main panel of the label and wrapper of the bottle, box or other container, and in letters of the same size and visability as the directions for the use of the preparation or remedy, the following words :
" It is unlawful to administer this preparation to a child under two years of age as it contains (insert name of drug) and is dangerous to its life.
" (h) No person shall sell for administration to a child under two years of age. or administer to any such child any remedy or preparation containing opium, morphine, heroin or codeine the sale of which is permitted by this subsection.
" (c) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall he liable upon summary conviction to the penalties provided in section 3 of this Act.
" (d) Nothing in this section shall repeal or affect any of the provisions of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act or any amendments thereto."


Mr. BEL  AND@: This is different from the amendment as it appeared in Hansard.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It differs in this respect: It was pointed out to me alter I gave notice of the amendment on Friday evening that if we required that the notice should be printed in letters of the same size and visibility as the word that dominates the label., you might have certain preparations where there would not be sufficient space on the bottle to print the name in such large type; it would be a physical impossibility to do so. Samples of such bottles have been shown to the officers of the department and to me, and upon giving the matter consideration we have decided to modify the proposed amendment so as to provide that this notice, must be printed in letters of the same size and visibility as the directions for the use of the preparation or remedy.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is another provision which is at variance with the amendment as contained in Hansard.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not recall it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: After the words:
It is unlawful to administer this preparation to a child under two years of age as it contains (insert name of drug) and is dangerous to its life.
I think the minister read another paragraph which I do not find in the amendment as printed in Hansard because that

amendment proceeds with the following words:
Provided, further, that the Governor in Council may, by regulation-
And so on.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That clause is stricken
out because I did not think it was necessary in view of the fact that section 14 of the Act of 1911 gives power to add other derivatives of these drugs to the schedule.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not only has one paragraph been stricken out but a new paragraph appears to have been added.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The form is changed. It was stated before:
It shall be an offence against this Act for any person to sell for administration to a child-
And so no. That would make it an indictable offence and proceedings would have to be by way of indictment which would be a departure from the general principle of procedure provided under the other sections of the Act. In a further conference with the Parliamentary Cbuncil I drew his attention to that fact and he recommended that this clause should be harmonized with the other sections of the Act and thus bring all prosecutions under the same provisions of the code; that is by summary conviction.


William Daum Euler: As I understand, the Bill, as proposed to be passed by this House, made it illegal to sell any preparation which contained even the slightest trace of opium or its derivatives, and this amendment is supposed to meet the complaint of the druggists in regard to that. The amendment now makes it legal to dispense medicines containing certain specified portions of these drugs. The hon. member for Mus-koka (Mr. MoGibbon), who is himself a practising physician, stated that the quantity of these preparations that is now permitted to be sold, or to be included in these medicines, is not sufficient to be of any practical value. I would like to know whether there is any point in that claim and whether the provisions which are now made meet with the views and desires of the druggists who waited upon the minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This Act is not intended to, and does not, repeal the Act of last session which dealt with patent and proprietary medicines. This deals with the particular class of drugs covered by it. The amount permitted by this Act is the amount which the druggists asked the Government to permit. It meets the view of the druggists entirely in so far as the quantity is
concerned. I think nearly all the members of the House have received telegrams asking them to see that the provisions of the Harrison Act were embodied in this Bill. We have followed the limits prescribed in the Harrison Act.


Mr. JACOBS:: Looking to Washington
again.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it was the hon.
members who were looking to Washington and urging me to put the same provisions in. There are some provisions of the Harrison Act which are more onerous than we are imposing by this Act. Under the Harrison Act every doctor, dentist, veterinary surgeon and druggist, whether he manufactures or not, must register and pay a fee and if he doe's not he is liable to a maximum penalty of $2,000.


Mr. WIGMORE:: I understand that by
this amendment the only people who are allowed to sell medicines containing a small amount of cocaine are druggists or doctors. You all know that throughout the Dominion, and especially in country districts, there are a great many general stores. Will they be deprived of the right to sell medicines containing small amounts of the drugs dealt with by this Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The only people authorized to sell medicines containing small amounts of these drugs are the druggists. That was the whole representation made to us at the time the delegation waited upon us. The reason it was urged that they should have this right was because of the skill and knowledge of the druggists and it was argued that they should be in that respect and to this limited extent in the same position as the physicians.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: With all due respect
to the minister, I think it will work a very great hardship to those people throughout the country who are miles away from a druggist or a physician. It will be utterly impossible for them to purchase these simple remedies. I hope the ministei will reconsider that decision and see if some provision cannot be introduced to allow country stores to sell these different medicines.


Peter McGibbon: I
feel that I must press this point upon the House. I have been for twenty years engaged in the practice of medicine. I have not met more than four dope fiends in my life. I know they exist in the large cities -but in the rural districts you do not find

them and what the hon. gentleman has just said is the absolute fact. Many of these drugs are an absolute necessity to people who live thirty or forty miles from a doctor. I was. going to say, there is not a week, when I am at home practising, that people do not telephone to me and complain of pains-symptoms of appendicitis, or colic or something of the kind-and I ask them if they have any remedies in the house. They tell me probably that they have some laudanum or paregoric, and I have prescribed it over the phone hundreds of times. If you are going to take away from these people the right to purchase such remedies, you are going to cause unknown suffering, and I would even go so far as to say, perhaps, death. The right to purchase these remedies is a liberty which they now have, and it should not be taken away from them. I am quite in sympathy with the whole principle that is behind this legislation. It is to restrict these drugs from reaching morphine fiends, and the object is a laudable one. But I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in the rural municipalities such characters are unknown. As the minister who has just taken his seat stated, people buy these remedies from the stores. Probably they purchase them at a post office-located perhaps twenty-five or thirty miles away from a village-where a few drugs and other simple remedies are kept. The accessibility of such remedies is a great convenience throughout the country, and I think the committee should go slow in depriving people in the rural districts of the freedom which they now enjoy in that regard. I am familiar with the circumstances because I have been practising for twenty years among these people, and have driven as much as one hundred miles with a team of horses to see patients in the country. To deprive the people in the country districts of such remedies would be a great hardship, because you cannot visit patients in the remote districts every day, and in consequence they cannot obtain medical attention.


Mr. LOGGIE:: In support of the position taken by my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat, I want to read a telegram from a very large general firm having a number of branch stores throughout the province of New Brunswick. It is as follows :
Please protest against passage Drug Act unless a clause on same similar to section six of the Harrison Narcotic Act is made part of the amendment Bill. Answer.

An extract from another telegram reads as follows:
No general store being able to sell a bottle of cough medicine without a doctor's prescription and will mean the loss to the retailers of all such goods on their shelves. .
On behalf of the country storekeepers in my county I protest against the passage of the Bill unless such provisions are inserted as are contained in the Harrison Narcotic Act. As I understand, that would allow the country storekeeper to sell patent medicines which this Bill in its present form will prohibit.


John Alexander Stewart: If this section
passes in its present form, it will certainly create a very great hardship unless some provision is made to protect the stocks that are on the shelves of country merchants. In the province of Quebec, in the Maritime Provinces, and in the western provinces, there is a very large territory that is entirely catered to by the general country store.


William Stewart Loggie: Hear, hear.	(


John Alexander Stewart: In the province of Quebec-outside of the larger centres-the towns with considerable population have nothing like the number of drug stores that are to be found in the province of Ontario, and the same condition obtains in the West. Take the three central western provinces, and it is a fact that you can go hundreds of miles and not strike a drug store at all. Now upon the shelves of the country stores in those sections of Canada, there will be fourld all manner of household remedies containing small quantities of narcotic drugs, that have been sanctified by a century's use. If the Bill passes in its present form it will certainly be necessary that these stocks be protected in some way. Even to allow a reasonable limit of time would not be sufficient protection, for the reason that in most cases the stocks that are on the shelves may last for years. These country merchants would have to be protected, otherwise they will suffer a very great hardship.
With reference to what has been said by the hon. gentleman who preceded me, I wish to say that under the provisions of the Harrison Law the sale of remedies and preparations that do not contain more than the exempted quantities of a narcctic drug is not confined to retail druggists; the remedies and preparations are exempted entirely from the operation of the Act. So that by legislating as is proposed here we are establishing a limitation that does not

exist under the Harrison Law, and I think I am quite within the mark, and the minister will bear me out in saying that the Harrison Law is the most advanced legislation for the control of narcotic drugs that has so far 'been passed by any country in the world. So that possibly if we went only as far as the Harrison Law goes we would be taking a decided, step in the direction of advanced legislation.


Mr. BALDWIN:: It was truly a revelation to me upon entering this Chamber to hear the hon. member for Muskoka inquiring who was going to protect the people. It must be remembered that not only druggists but country merchants have a right to sell these remedies and preparations which have been referred to. Travellers go around the whole country-even to remote back settlements-selling what are known as patent medicines. In this connection it is unfortunate that during the last few years country merchants have been exposed to visits from shysters endeavouring to find out whether they have affixed to the packages containing these medicines the stamp that is required by law. Now it is proposed to enact legislation that will deprive the retail merchants of the right to sell patent medicines. That will inflict great hardship upon those who sell and use them, and I echo the question of my hon. friend (Mr. McGibbon), "Who is looking out for the people?" There are many valuable remedies in patent medicine from which people obtain relief, among which I might mention hypo-phosphates. Of course the sale of nostrums is often attempted but they come and they go quickly. The Government can look after those who are manufacturing patent medicines, and compel them to display their formulas, before they are permitted to register and manufacture. The legislation proposed here would result in one of the greatest hardships imaginable. Think of the stocks of patent medicines in the possession of storekeepers throughout this vast country which in many localities, is so sparsely settled. As other hon. gentlemen said, some of these stores are located hundreds of miles back in the country. Also, throughout the whole province of Quebec, the grocer carries a small stock of patent medicines. In the United States the Harrison Law protects people from having injurious drugs dispensed to them, and at the same time permits the sale of wholesome patent medicines throughout the land. We in this country should protect the country storekeeper who in 112
many instances is stocked up with patent medicines to a value of from $100 to $500. I think it would be simply intolerable if the protection asked for were not accorded to the country storekeeper who in good faith buys patent medicines from the manufacturers' agents. Lyman and Sons and other wholesale houses send their agents all over the eastern provinces to sell these medicines, storekeepers buy them in good faith, and then they are prosecuted because the tax stamp was not affixed to the package by the manufacturer. I protest against this measure, and hope that it will not be proceeded with.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I hope the minister will not press this particular section as it will operate to the detriment of the people living in remote country districts. I assume that he has spent most of his life in the large centres of population, and I desire to bring home to him the conditions in, for instance, Ithe northern part of British Columbia, rwith a coastline of 12,000 miles, where there aire only four drug stores to serve a population of 80,000 or 90,000, living in small fishing and mining .centres. In those comimunii'ties ithere are no local drug stores, and it ,would cost at least $50 to get to a oemltre rwhere drugs could be purchased. I hope with this information before him the minister will not press this particular section.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (Algorna):: If this Ao't is intended to apply to patent and proprietary medicines, and is not exclusively designed to protect the issuance of prescriptions by a physician, then surely in the interests of the country storekeepers and people in sparsely settled districts the Adt should be amended. I am intimately aoquanited .with sections where a man or .woman would have to go 200 miles to reach a drug store. After all, it seems to me that if the aim of this Act is to prevent the abuse of narcotics, .and to confine the issuance of prescriptions to the medical profession and their fulfilment to the druggists, we might .well leave patent and proprietary medicines just as they are.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is obvious that my hon. friends .are under a .misapprehension. This Act does .nOt apply to patent or proprietary medicines, those medicines having been dealt with by legislation of last session. To refer for a moment to that Act; its provisions are stringent, and, indeed, some hon. members may fee of opinion that they are too stringent, but I was not in charge of the Bill, it having been introduced by



the then Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maclean). That Bill was referred to a committee, the committee heard representations from the different parties interested, and reported the Bill back to the House. It was made much more stringent than in its original form, and is on the statute books by virtue of Ihe action of this House, not by virtue of the form in which it was introduced by the Government. Some bon. members may think that that Act should be amended, but we are not dealing with that Act in this Bill; so the whole question of patent and proprietary medicines is beside this discussion. I may say in reference to the Act of last session that provision was made for dealing with stocks on hand so that they might be disposed of under certain regulations, and I do not think any one's stock was confiscated or interfered with under the provisions of that Act. So far as the present Bill is concerned, it is quite true that provision should be made to take care of stocks on hand, and I have an amendment to cover that, which I intend to move when we dispose of the clause now under discussion. That amendment is in this form:
The Governor in Council may by regulation provide such period or periods as he deems necessary to enable any person to use or dispose of any drug, packages and labels now owned or contracted for by such person which do not conform to the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made hereunder. Any such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
In addition thereto I intend to ask the committee to insert a provision that fhe Act shall come into force on proclamation by the Governor in Council, in order to give further 'time not only to those who will be affected by it to accommodate themselves to the new conditions, but to enable the department to make preparations to deal with matters arising under the new provisions of the latw. Those two sections will, I think, meet the points mentioned 'by my hon. friend from Lanark.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I am not altogether satisfied with this 'amendment. We certainly understood that patent medicines, such as wild strawberry and certain cough mixtures, contain a certain amount of cocaine and other drugs. Now, under this amendment apparently it will be illegal for a country storekeeper to sell those simple remedies. I aim not worried at all about the hardship it may work on the storekeeper, but I am alarmed over the fact that needy persons will not be able to pro-

cure these simple remedies,-and they are usually people living away back in country districts. If it is not possible to have this change made, I will be prepared to move an amendment to it, because I think it is a 'matter of very great importance, and should be settled by being incorporated in this Bill.


Peter McGibbon: In order to clear up what may be a misapprehension, I would like to ask the minister again if it is not the fact that the ordinary general storekeeper or anybody else but the druggist and medical man is prohibited from selling any preparations which do not conform with the Harrison Act or the amendments introduced in accordance therewith?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. As I think I explained before, 'this amendment permits druggists only to sell this quantity. It is true that ithe remedy my hon. friend has mentiemed, if it contains some of these drugs is prohibited; but that is the law under the Act of last session relating to proprietary and patent medicines.


Peter McGibbon: This
Bill undoubtedly rules out of the market many useful remedies. But it permits medications containing up to two grains of opium per ounce; these will undoubtedly be manufactured and sold, because they are a necessity. But I urge that the sale of remedies which conform with these amendments be not restricted to sale by druggists and doctors. If the minister must limit the amount of opium to twro grains per ounce, I think he should let everybody sell any such medication.


John Alexander Stewart: It seems to me
that there is some confusion in the minds of hon. members as to what a patent or proprietary medicine is. The ordinary lay mind looks upon a patent medicine and a proprietary medicine as different products. But the original Act, which was amended last year, is entitled " The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act," so that so far as the law is concerned a patent medicine is precisely the same thing as a proprietary medicine; the terms "patent" and " proprietary " are synonymous. The difference between a patent or proprietary medicine and a remedy that may be termed a pharmaceutical preparation depends upon what is contained on the label of the bottle. Reference nas been made to the fact that last year an Act was passed prohibiting the manufacture of all proprietary and

patent medicines that contain opium or any of its derivatives, and that is the law to-day with reference to patent or proprietary medicines. This is the case but if we pass the amendment that is proposed to this Bill, the result will be that the manufacturer of any patent or proprietary medicine has only to put the formula of his preparation upon the label or the wrapper of the bottle in order to take his preparation from under the provisions of the Proprietary or Patent 'Medicine Act. Let me read what the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act says:
" Proprietary or patent medicine " means every artificial remedy or prescription manufactured for the internal or external use of man, the name, composition or definition of which is not to be found in the British Pharmacopoeia, the Codex Medicamentarius of France, the Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or any foreign pharmacopoeia approved by the minister, the Canadian Formulary, the National Formulary of the United States of America, or any formulary adopted by any properly constituted pharmaceutical association representing the Dominion of Canada and approved by the minister-
This is the point:
-or upon which is not printed in a conspicuous manner the true formula or list of medicinal ingredients contained in it.
Now, a proprietary or patent medicine is one the formula of which the manufacturer desires to keep secret. (He goes to the proper department; he deposits his formula, and if approved gets a number and a license which carries with it the right to manufacture that preparation under a certain name. If he does not wish to do that, all he has to do is to put upon the label of the bottle a list of the ingredients which the remedy contains, and that takes the preparation out of the provisions of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. In other words, while the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act to-day prohibits the manufacture of any preparation that contains opium or any of its derivatives it would still be possible for a manufacturer of any such preparation to bring his remedy within this Bill by simply printing a list of the ingredients upon the label of the bottle. It would then be permissable for the druggist or country merchant to sell such preparation notwithstanding the present form of the Patent of Proprietary Act. The condition which has been referred to by the members from the Maritime Provinces and by the hon. gentleman from British Columbia (Mr. Clements) exists to a very great extent in the province of Quebec outside the large centres, and in the 1124
western provinces. It is a matter which will result in very little hardship in Ontario, became in no other province are the people so well served with drug stores as they are in Ontario. But my point is that what is contained in the Proprietary and Patent Medicine Act would in no way interfere with giving the relief which has been asked for by hon. .gentlemen who have preceded me.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend's interpretation of the Proprietary and Patent Medicine Act is quite correct. If it is the desire of the committee that this clause should be amended so as to make a larger provision for the sale of preparations containing this limited amount of opium, I have no objection; our only desire is to have the Act in the best form to serve the public interest. Before I move the 5 p.rn. amendment, however, may I say: Hon. members know the representations which have been made in favour of the relaxation of the restrictions contained in this Bill. But very strong representations have been made to the Government by child welfare organizations, particularly in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, against any relaxation whatever. The statement has been made in communi: cations from responsible persons connected with these organizations that the sale of preparations containing even these limited quantities of the drugs referred to have resulted in the death of a number of children. Such preparations, they assert, are inimical to the health of small children, and they have begged the Government not to relax one iota in the strictness of the provision as originally introduced. I simply want to remind hon. members that there are two sides to the question, and to point out that those interested in child welfare have urged that the Government should not relax the restriction even to the extent proposed in the amendment now before the committee. However, I appreciate the difficulty that has been mentioned this afternoon; that is, you do provide for the sale where there are drug stores, but you do not provide for the sale where there are none. I am free to say that the argument has impressed me; I think it has weight, and that we must meet it. I am prepared to move-we will try it; it may be that no abuse will arise out of it-that the proposed section (4) be amended by striking out the words in the third line thereof: "by a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store." Any one will thereby be entitled

to sell these preparations, subject to the provisions contained in the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Will those who have large stocks on hand in the different provinces be allowed a certain length of time within which to sell that stock?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They will.


John Alexander Stewart: There is another
matter in connection with this clause that I think should receive consideration. The amendment provides for exemptions of the quantities of these drugs as set out in the Harrison Law, but it contains a provision that is not to be found in the Harrison Law, and that is with reference to the medication, aside from the narcotic drug itself. It says:
But every such remedy or preparation as is mentioned in this section must contain active medicinal drugs other than narcotics in sufficient proportion to confer upon the preparation or remedy valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the narcotic drug alone.
This provision is not to be found in the Harrison Law, although the same principle has been adopted in the Treasury Orders under which the Harrison Law in the United States has been administered. What I would suggest is that this section should make provision for the manner of determining the medication aside from the narcotic drugs.
Under section 7A, subsection (1) of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act which was amended last year, an advisory board was constituted for the purpose of considering the question of medication. It was primarily intended that it should deal with the question of medication of remedies which otherwise might violate the provisions of the temperance legislation in force in the different provinces. But the Act itself went further, and by paragraph (c) of subsection O) of section 7 delegated to the advisory board power to decide as to the medication of drugs in so far as they came within the schedule to that Act. I submit that there should be inserted in this clause a provision that the question of medication, aside from the narcotics, should be passed upon by the advisory board constituted under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. because otherwise we shall possibly have the administration of these two Acts' by different parties in the Department of Health, with a consequent lack of uniformity of decision on the question of medication. Section 6 of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act provides :
The manufacture, importation or sale of all proprietary or patent medicines contained in

opium or its derivatives for internal use are prohibited.
If effect is given to the amendment we are now considering to the Opium and Drug Act, then to be consistent the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act will require to be amended to permit exactly the same proportions of narcotic drugs. There is no logical reason why we should permit the use under this Bill of limited quantities of narcotic drugs and prohibit the use of the same quantities of the same drugs under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. We would simply be in this position: The manufacturer of any patent or proprietary medicine could use the narcotic drugs by simply printing on the label or the wrapper a list of the ingredients.


Mr. McMASTER:: Would not that be of value in protecting the public against the use of narcotics without their knowledge?


John Alexander Stewart: It would have that effect undoubtedly. The point I desire to make is this. We have in the Department of Health now an advisory board composed of men eminently qualified to deal with this very matter. Members of the board are: Dr. Blackader, Professor of Therapeutics and Materia Medica at McGill University, Dr. Rudoff, occupying the same position at Toronto University, Professor Hebner, Professor of Pharmacy at the Toronto School of Pharmacy, Professor Lecours, Professor of Pharmacy at Laval, and Dr. McGill, Dominion Analyst. These men have been constituted a board for the purpose of determining the question of medication, and it does seem to me that if we are to have uniformity in the administration of the Opium and Drug Act and of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act we should utilize the services of the board, and it should be named in this section for the purpose of determining the question of medication. I do not propose to urge the matter further. - It can be very easily covered by adding at the end of section 4A the following paragraph:
Provided that the advisory board constituted under section 7A (1) of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act shall have power to prescribe what shall be deemed sufficient medication aside from the narcotic ingredients of the remedies and preparations permitted under this subsection.
There can be no question that the experience of this board would be of great value in determining what was sufficient medication of the remedies and preparations referred to in the amendment we are now considering.


Joseph Archambault: Is it not a fact that this board has made a report on this Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have already told my hon. friend that they have not.


Robert James Manion: I wish to support the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Stewart). The clause as it stands is a very good one, hut I think that medication should be under the control of the advisory board. Unless the medication was adopted by the manufacturer a quarter of a grain of morphine could be taken in very pleasant mixtures. I think the minister would be well advised in accepting my hon. friend's amendment.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is, of course, no objection in principle to what my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Stewart) has suggested, supported by my hon. friend (Mr. Manion). In fact, my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) some time ago urged this very point upon my attention. I have therefore had the opportunity of considering it. As a matter, not of principle, but of actual practice in the working of the Act, I think it is not desirable to accept the suggestion at the present time. I will give my hon. friends the reason. This advisory board is composed of men living in the cities of Toronto and Montreal and engaged in the practice of their professions. Necessarily they only meet occasionally to deal with matters that arise. I have the highest opinion of the board-in fact, I recommended them myself for appointment-'but we have found that it has taken a great deal of time to get decisions on matters referred to them under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. I have no doubt that it is because they desire to give the matter the greatest care, but at times it takes weeks to get decisions. Now when you have scores of these preparations coming up under the provisions of this Act, I submit that it is in the interest of the business community and the public generally to have prompt decisions, and I think for the present we had better try to deal with this'- matter under regulations issued by the department. I am sure it will secure expedition in dealing with the questions that come up. For that reason I would ask my hon. friend not to press his amendment.


John Alexander Stewart: I shall withdraw it. I repeat that so far as the trade is concerned there is no possible complaint in regard to the administration of this branch, and if in the opinion of the minister it is
better to give this method a trial I withdraw my proposed amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to insert as subsection (5) a clause which will make the schedule conform with the provisions of the Order in Council under which certain drugs have been added to the schedule and now form part of the schedule by virtue of that Order ill Council. I therefore move that the following be added as subsection (5) of section 1:
The schedule to the said Act is amended by adding thereto, after the word " opium." the following: Or its preparations, or any opium alkaloids or their derivatives, or salts or preparations of opium alkaloids or their derivatives.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1 as amended agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I now move as section 2 the following:
The Governor in Council may by regulation provide such period or periods as he deems necessary to enable any person to use or dispose of any drug, packages and labels now owned or contracted for by such person which do not conform to the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made hereunder. Any such regulation shall be published in the Canada Gazette.


John Alexander Stewart: Has the department any idea as to what length of time will be permitted for the disposal of exists ing stocks? As I understand the amendment, the matter will be determined by Order in Council. I do not object to that manner of dealing with it because I entirely appreciate the necessity for a flexible method, although such method has its disadvantages. I might draw the minister's attention to the fact that an amendment was made to section 17 of the Patent or Proprietary Medicines Act a year ago giving to the minister the power to make the same regulations as it is proposed now to empower the Governor in Council to make. But nothing has been done so far. I believe that the Department of Justice has ruled that the Act is in full force, and every dealer in Canada to-day is technically violating its provisions. I quite realize that this may to some extent be due to the fact that the Act has been a bird of passage. It was originally administered by the Department of Inland Revenue and then passed to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and from there to the newly constituted Department of Health, and this may be why the regulations have never been made. Under the law as it now stands

every dealer is technically in violation of the law. Perhaps the minister can tell us what length of time will be allowed for disposing of stocks on hand.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No one has suffered under the existing Act.


John Alexander Stewart: No.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Those engaged in the
business have had time since the Act was passed to dispose of stocks on hand, and we may give them further grace. In answer to the question of my hon. friend, I may say that we have not yet considered the matter of fixing any time. The department will of course be prepared, to hear representations which men interested in the trade may have to make as to what would be a reasonable period to fix for the disposal of stocks on hand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to move as section 4 the following:
This Act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: May I suggest that as
so many amendments have been made to the Act the minister might have it reprinted before the third reading and let it stand on the Order Paper for a day or two until members interested have had an opportunity of studying it in its revised form? I have no reason to anticipate any objections to its third reading, but it is desirable that the matter should not be hurried.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite agreeable.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the title carry? Mr. ROWELL:	I should like to revert
to section 1. I think it is probably wise, in order to avoid confusion, that we should meet a question which has been raised by a number of hon. members. It has been suggested that this Act covers something more than narcotic drugs, and I therefore move that we add to subsection (1) of section 1 the word " narcotic " before the word " drug '' in the foprth line, so that the Act will be known as " The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act." Its name will thereby indicate the character of the drugs with which the Act deals.


Jacques Bureau: It deals with nothing else but narcotic drugs?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. .
Section as amended agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the title carry?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Before the title carries I should like to say just a few words in regard to a matter of interest. The minister in introducing this legislation gave us a comprehensive and useful account of the international significance of the legislation as it related to the opium traffic; and as a matter possibly of historical and academic interest as to Canada's part in the suppression of that traffic, I may be permitted to add just a word or two to what the minister has said concerning previous legislation. The first time the subject came up in this House was following the riots which took place in Vancouver consequent on the Asiatic immigration. The Government was asked to compensate Japanese and Chinese for losses arising out of these riots. There were put in before the commission claims from Chinese merchants for losses sustained in connection with the opium traffic. Apparently at that time it was lawful to carry on the manufacture of opium in the province of British Columbia. A report was presented to Parliament on the losses sustained by Chinese in Vancouver, and that report is 74-F of the 1908 sessional reports. At page 15 a reference is made to the manufacture carried on by two opium manufacturers in Vancouver, one concern having a net profit in 1907 of $20,000 and the other a profit of $15,000. When this extensive manufacturing of opium came to the attention of the Government it was thought wise to investigate with a view to the suppression of the opium traffic. As I had personally to do with the first investigation, it became my duty to look into the question of the suppression of the traffic.
I preferred a report which was presented to Parliament in 1908 and which appears as report No. 36 B of that year. That report was followed by legislation introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) 7-8 Edward VII, chapter 50, "an Act to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of opium for other than medicinal purposes." Then came the commission at Shanghai and at that commission a report which appears in the proceedings of the Shanghai commission, was presented on opium and morphia in Canada. It says that during five years from 1904 to 1908 there were imported of all grades of opium into Canada a total of 1,290,688 pounds. That was the significant feature of that particular report. Subsequent to that report came the legislation passed in 1911 for the suppression of opium and habit forming

drugs. The minister has dealt with the other features of the traffic. It occurred to me that possibly to students of this particular movement for the suppression of the opium traffic a reference to this data might be of some service.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I wish to bring to the notice of the minister that the procedure with respect to this Bill-is the most extraordinary procedure and something I never saw the like of in this House before or during my experience extending over a period of sixteen years. I never saw a Bill that contained only the skeleton of the measure introduced into this House. It had no beginning and no end and if we are going to get through with the legislation this session, and we have a long list of bills yet on the Order Paper, I would suggest that these Bills be properly drafted before they are submitted to the House. This is certainly poor drafting.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All I have to say in answer to my hon. friend is that I should think it is a proper thing for the Government to consider any representations made in reference to public Bills of great importance and that if these representations should indicate that there should be modifications, it is desirable that those modifications should be made. Under this Bill we do not insist upon complete prohibition but we provide for certain limited and properly safeguarded modifications.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister had no conception at the genesis of this Bill what the country wanted or what he had in mind and he had to go out into the highways and the byways to find out the provisions that should be placed in a measure of this kind. We should know before we start a Bill what is wanted.
Bill reported.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT ' AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 56 to amend the Technical Education Act.
Jacques Bureau: May I ask the minister why it is proposed to amend the Act in this way? I understand that when we passed the Technical Education Act it was provided that the value of the lands and buildings was to be taken into consideration as forming part of the amount expended by the province which amount
would form the basis of the grant by the Federal Government. Is that right?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: No, not quite. The Act, as passed and assented to on the 7th July, 1919, provided, in clause 5, subclause 2 as follows:
In determining the grant payable to any province annually no account shall be taken of any liability or expenditure incurred by the province for the acquiring of land, the erection or improvement of any buildings or the supplying of furnishings or equipment for any technical education institution established in the province prior to the first day of April, 1919.
That is struck out because it operates very disadvantageously and unfairly against the provinces which already have done very considerable in the way of promoting institutions for technical education.


Jacques Bureau: I remember now; it is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
On section 2-provincial expenditure for land, buildings and equipment may be taken into account in determining Dominion grant:
Jacques Bureau: Might I suggest to the minister that it would be a good idea to have the old clause printed on the blank page of the Bill? A Bill comes up here and unless you look up the statute you do not know what the effect of the amendment is. We may have forgotten what has taken place last year and it would be very easy if the old clause were printed on the opposite page to see at a glance what the proposed change was.


Arthur Meighen: That might have been done very easily with this Bill because there is plenty of room.


Jacques Bureau: Could it be done hereafter?


Arthur Meighen: In a Bill such as the
Franchise Act-


Jacques Bureau: That is a Bill of a different character. In the case of a smallir Bill where you are merely adding, or striking out, a word, I think it would save a lot of trouble if my suggestion could be carried out.


Arthur Meighen: It would scarcely do
to have what my hon. friend suggests pass as part of the Bill itself, but it might be quite easy to Lave a sheet attached to the measure giving the clause in its original

form. I will try the experiment at the first opportunity.


Jacques Bureau: It is important to be
able to keep under your eye the original clauses as well as the amendments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The section
as it originally stood is just the opposite of what was desired, is it not?


Arthur Meighen: No; the hon. member's remark might be taken too widely. The protection which is sought to be given is sufficiently clear and strong under section six, subclause (b), which reads:
No portion of any grant shall be used in whole or in part in meeting- any liability or expenditure of any kind whatsoever incurred in -any province prior to the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, for lands, buildings, furnishings or equipment secured or provided for technical education purposes.
'That stands. If subclause 2 of clause 5 is to stand, then wherever there is an institution that already has those lands, and buildings, no assistance can go to it. Now in Nova Scotia there are several technical buildings, but there is only one organization that controls the whole of them, and that is the institution which is affected. The Act as it stands prevents assistance, as provided for by the Act, being given to the province of Nova Scotia. The protection that we wish is sufficiently ample in clause six, and there is no necessity for subsection 2 of section 5 which goes further than was intended.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. BURRELL (Minister of Customs) moved the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend paragraph (b) of section ten of the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, chapter eighty-six, by increasing the test of petroleum sold or offered for sale in Canada for illuminating purposes, prescribed in the said paragraph at a weight of more than eight pounds and five-hundredths of a pound per gallon, to a weight of more than eight pounds and Beventeen-hundredths of a pound per gallon.
_ Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Jacques Bureau: Is there any particular
reason for this amendment?


Mr. BURRELL:: The object of the amendment is to render it possible for Canadian 
refineries to produce a considerably larger quantity of refined oil from crude oil. The result of analysis of seven samples has been to demonstrate that the oil derived therefrom is suitable for domestic use and in all oases satisfactory.


Jacques Bureau: The change proposed
does not affect the quality of the oil?


Martin Burrell: The oil is just as good for illuminating purposes, but the weight provided for will enable a larger amount to be produced in Canada. If any further information is desired I shall be pleased to give it when we are in committee on the Bill.
Resolution reported, read a second time and concurred in. Thereupon Hon. Mr. Burrell introduced Bill No. 92 to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act, which was read the first time.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT-STEAMBOAT INSPECTION.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 49, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Steamboat Inspection) was read a second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-rules and regulations.
Jacques Bureau: I see that the old section is repealed and a new section is substituted giving the Governor in Council power to make regulations concerning (a) to (h) inclusive. Are any new powers given to the Governor in Council?
Mr. BAiLLANTYNE: Under the old Act all steam vessels under Canadian registry do not pay any tax or duty whatever, while those under British registry pay ten cents per ton. The object of the amendments is to give the Department of Marine a revenue of $106,000 a year, being the actual cost of inspection of steamships under construction and also of the annual inspection of the boilers, engines and equipment of steamships in commission. Heretofore the Department of Marine has been doing the work gratuitously, but the tonnage under Canadian registry having grown to an enormous extent, I think hon. members will agree that it is only fair and right that we should levy the fees that this amendment calls for. The proposed scale I read to the House a few nights ago, but I will read it again. It is as follows:
For a fifty-ton non-passenger steam vessel the charge would $15; from 50 to 100 tons $25; from 100 to 150 -tons, $30; from 150 to

200 tons, $35 ; from 200 to 300 tons, $45 ; from 300 to 500 tons, $55 ; from 500 to 700 tons, $75 ; from 700 to 1,000 tons, $110 ; from 1,000 to
2.000	tons, $135; over and above 2,000 tons and up to 10,000 tons, $50 for each additional
1.000	tons. The charge for passenger ships is $5 per ton higher.
The total revenue that we expect to get under this scale will merely cover The expense incurred by the department.


Jacques Bureau: That comes under section 2 otf the Bill. What I had in mind is section 1, providing for the amendment of section 578 of the Act. I have not the statute under my hand, but it must have enumerated the subjects over which the Governor in Council exercised control. My question is:	Are any new subjects added
to the list as it existed under section 578?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No new subjects
are added. Under the old Act we could charge only ten cents per ton; the object of this amendment is to enable us to put in force the scale I have just mentioned.


Jacques Bureau: That would come under
section 643, which says:
That the Governor in Council may from time to time fix the duty to be paid yearly and every year by the owner and master of a ship.
But my question is:	Under 578 had
the Governor in Council power heretofore to make regulations for the testing of boilers and machinery, respecting the qualifications necessary to entitle a person to an engineer's certificate, and so on.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have section 578
before me, .and comparing it with this amendment I do not see the slightest difference between them.


William Duff: If the minister will look
again, he will find there is a slight difference. Section 578 of the old Act sets forth subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), ((f), and (g), and these subsections are practically the same in the new Bill; but clause (h) provides:
For the establishment of a scale of fees and the collection thereof for examining plans of the hulls, boilers and machinery and equipment, of steamboats; for the inspection of steamboats, their machinery and equipment, during construction ; and for sudh like examinations or inspection in connection with the Steamboat Inspection Service."
If I read the old Act and this Bill correctly that is a new subsection, and I presume that is why section 578 is repealed. It seems to me, however, that there is no necessity to enumerate the different clauses
(a) to (g); the Act could be amended by simply adding subsection (h) to section 578. '


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
is right, there is no change until subsection (h) is reached, but the reason for setting forth the change there is in order that we may revise the scale of fees. Section 643 of the old Act sets forth that there can be a charge of only ten cents per ton, and the objects of this Bill is to enable us to cancel that and to put in the scale I have just mentioned.


William Duff: Has the minister read section 643?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That section provides :
That the Governor in Council may fix a duty to be paid yearly and every year by the owner or master of every steamboat registered in Canada not exceeding ten cents for every gross ton of such steamboat measurements without any allowance or deduction for the space occupied by the engine room.
Then subsection 2 goes on to say to whom the duties shall be paid. The only object of this Bill is to enable us to charge the new scale.


William Duff: I quite agree with what the minister has said about section 643 of the old Act, which is covered by section 2 of this Bill. I rose a moment ago to call attention to the fact that I do not see why all the subsections from (a) to (g) of section 578 should be repealed. Would it not be better to add subsection (h) to the old section, so that it would read:
For the establishment of a scale of fees and the collection thereof, for examining plans of hulls,-
and so on?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In order to nmke
these changes the Deputy Minister of Marine thought it would be better to repeal the whole of section 578, and then reinstate it with the addition of subsection (h). It is as broad as it is long.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Some days ago I asked the minister if inspection made in England was recognized by Canadian inspectors, and I understood him to say that a double inspection would not in such cases be necessary. I have since, however, had correspondence with ship owners who say that the present law enables the Canadian inspector to insist upon an inspection in Canada, even though the ship had been inspected while she was in England. Will the minister explain that?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The question the hon. member put to me was the very reverse oE that, if I understood him correctly. He wanted to know whether Canadian inspection would hold good in foreign ports, and my reply was, yes. But under the Shipping Act, all vessels under Canadian registry and plying in Canadian waters have to be inspected annually.


John Howard Sinclair: The inspection made in England by Lloyd's Underwriters is the best inspection in the world. If ship-owners who have had their ships inspected in England must subject their ships to another inspection in Canada, the result will be a tendency to remove the ships from Canadian registry. The regulation to which the minister has referred is a bad one; it works against the interests of Canada. The minister ought to have it clearly understood that when a ship has been inspected in England and classed for a number of years as satisfactory to Lloyd's Underwriters, a second inspection in Canada is unnecessary. Take the port of St. John, where many Canadian-owned ships trade. A ship arrives there which had previously been inspected in England. The Canadian inspector walks on board and asks to have her inspected. Well, there is no slip on which to put the ship; you have to run her on the mud, perhaps, and wait till the tide runs out; the result is considerable delay and large expense. Owners have found it necessary to remove their ships from Canadian registry in order to avoid these difficulties. I would like the minister to have the law changed to provide that the British inspection shall be recognized in Canada.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Of course, that does not come within the confines of this Act. However, I shall be glad to bear in mind what the hon. member says and to talk the matter over with the officers of my department. Before we could adopt that suggestion we should have to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o' clock.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I might explain to the hon. member (Mr. Duff) that the reason why this Bill enumerates practically all that is in clause 578, with the exception of paragraph (h), is that the Department

of Justice has ruled that when any change is to be made in any clause it is better to revoke the whole clause than to amend just the particular part affected.


William Duff: I wish to refer for a moment to the inspection of hulls and boilers of ships arriving in Canada. If I understood correctly the minister's remarks on introducing this resolution a few days ago, it will be necessary for ships coming to Canada which have been inspected in England to undergo inspection also on arrival in Canada. That is a hardship which I think should not be inflicted on the owners of British ships. If a British ship is inspected by the Inspector of Hulls and Boilers at Liverpool, why should she also have to undergo inspection on her arrival in this country at Halifax, St. John, Montreal or Quebec? I think that the inspection in the British Isles is perhaps more strict than ours, and that we should be quite willing ito accept the certificate of the British Inspector of Hulls and Boilers, and not subject the owners and captains of British ships to the delay of a further inspection by the Canadian Inspector of Hulls and Boilers.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. The minister was good enough to send me a copy of the scale of charges which the owners of vessels have to pay to the Government for inspection. The minister told us he expected this year to get $115,000 of revenue from this .source. Now, while I do ndt object to the owners of ships paying a certain amount, for the inspection of their vessels, it does seem to me that the charges set out in this scale for the inspection of boats of the smaller Class is rather 'high. Steamers under fifty tons, for instance, will have Ito pay $20 for inspection in the case of a passenger steamer and $15 in the case of a freight steamer. That in my opinion is rather high. I can understand a fair sum being charged the larger boats which are earning a great deal more money, but these boats under fifty tons are merely tug boats or little boats plying between local .ports on the Pacific or Atlantic coast, and furthermore, many of them at the present time are receiving subsidies from this Government. lit seems to me that if these boats are able to pay the charges set forth in this scale, we ought not to pay them subsidies. We should not give with the one hand and take away with the other. I would, therefore, suggest that the inspection charge for the first three classes men-

tioned in the schedule, namely, under 50 tons, between 50 and 100, and between 100 and 150 -should be a little tower.
The minister -expects a revenue, he said, of $115,000 from the inspection of these ships. I -see iby the Auditor-General's report -that t-he cost to the Government of the inspection last year of the boilers and hulls of steamers was $78,099.90; that is the amount that was paid from the treasury.
I do not think any of the items which go to make ,up this aggregate are excessive at all. The salary, for -a good man who is able to inspect properly the hull and boilers of steamers and -certify them fit for freight and passenger traffic, is not too high. But I should like to know why, if this inspection cost only $78,000 last year, the minister thin-ks it necessary -to collect $115,000 from vessel owners this year, especially in view of the fact that, a-oco-rdi-ng to the Audiitor-General's report for 1919 (Vol. 2, page O- 115), the amount received by the customs officers for inspection fees of hulls and bolile-rs amounted -last year to only $1,486.11? If -these figures are correct, I do no-t see how the minister can expect to get $115,000 this year from this -source. I do not know whether it is wi-se to charge the owners of boats su-ch a large amount for the inspection of their vessels. Everybody who has had -anything to do rwi-th Ships, either steam or sail, knows that practically at eveTy turn a ship makes she i-s assessed a charge of some kind or another. The minute they approach our shores they have to pay pilotage dues, in port sick mariners' dues, tonnage dues, -and every other kind of dues. It seems to me i-t would hardly tend to encourage shipbuilding and the development of a merchant marine for the department deliberately to set out to collect from the owners of vessels a sufficient amount to pay the total -cost of the inspections made throughout the year. While a f-air charge might be asked-for I do not think -the department -should bear the whole expense of the inspection-the department should -not make money out of it. Only a nominal oharge should be made for the inspection of these ships.
There is another point I wish to make. If t-he Bill passes as it stands, the minister and hi-s officials will have power to adopt any schedule of rates they see fit. It seems to me thait if the committee approve of this schedule, it should be added to the Canada Shipping Act; I do no-t think it i-s wise to leave the matter open so that owners will not know what amounts they will be called on to pay for inspection.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I notice my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) in his sea-t. 1 think we have been talking -a little -at cross purposes in connection with the information which that hon. gentleman and my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) were -seeking. If a ship sailing under any flag arrives at a Canadian -port and holds a certificate of inspection -that is not over one year old, that certificate holds good, but if it is over a year old, there -has to be a Canadian inspection. Probably what my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) had in	mind was	Lloyd's inspection overseas of hulls and boilers. So far as this particular Bill is concerned,
I desire to make it clear that, irrespective of the register she may be sailing under, when a ^hip reaches a Canadian port h;r certificate is asked for, and if it is not over a year old it holds good. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) with reference to fees, I have compared our fees with those charged in England, and I find that the scale I am proposing now is really lower. We have taken the advice of shipping interests in Montreal and other places and they -have taken no exception whatever to our scale of fees. The sum we desire to collect is not $115,000, but $105,000, and this scale of fees if adopted will provide the cost of expenses for the fiscal year upon which we have now entered. The hon. member was correct when he said that the inspection expenses during the past fiscal year -amounted to $78,000; and my department, it is also true, collected only $3,200 last year. I am sure that hon. members will appreciate that, with the very large increase in tonnage which we have now, due first of all to the fleet which the Government own and are no-w operating, -and also to the very large additional tonnage in wooden s-hips that were built during the war, the Inspection Department will be called upon to do a great deal more work this year than they have ever done before. With this moderate scale of fees we shall derive, as nearly as we have figured out, $105,000 revenue. The hon. member for Lunenburg pointed out that under the Act the -Governor in Council has authority either to increase or to decrease the fees from time to time. He is right in that regard, but if my department finds a year hence that the fees are too high we shall lower them, while, on the otheT hand, if they prove inadequate to meet the Inspection Department's expenses it is only fair business for the Minister of Marine, when that time arrives, to ask the

Government to increase the scale so as to meet those expenses. We are seeking to meet the expenses of the department and nothing more.


William Duff: I would have no objection to steamers and sailing ships being called upon to pay fees adequate to meet the expenses of the department, if all otheT things were equal. If the Government took the duties off all the various articles that enter into the building of steamers and ships I would be quite willing to have a tax of this sort imposed to meet all necessary expenses in connection with the department. But in view of the fact that owners and builders of steamers have to pay a duty of thirty or thirty-five per cent on everything they import, such as anchors, chains, etc., it is hardly fair to expect them to pay the total expenses in connection with steamship inspection or any other work which the Government may require. The minister says he expects to get $105,000 revenue. Under the ten cents per ton clause which was in force last year, however, he only received the amount which I mention. He informs us that the total revenue last year was $3,200 odd, but if he reflects for a moment I think he will find that almost $1,300 of that sum was paid in fees for engineers' certificates and had nothing to do with inspection. Only about $1,486, roughly, was collected by the customs officials for inspection of steamers, and if at the rate of ten cents per ton last year we received only $1,486, I cannot see how we shall receive $105,000 this year. I hope we may be able to do it, but I cannot possibly see how this sum will be secured. The Tate is rather high, especially on smaller boats, and those steamers plying between different ports in the Maritime Provinces and the ports in British Columbia will, I think, find it difficult to pay their expenses. The minister tells us that this regulation ought to be made by Order in Council. May I suggest that he take up this matter with his officials to see if it is not possible to have the rate lowered so far as the smaller boats are concerned at all events, if it would not too far interfere with his revenue? It would be an encouragement to the owners of small steamers, who experience great difficulty in making both ends meet after paying expenses in connection with coal, wages, etc.
I said a few weeks ago that it might be well to attach a schedule to the Act in connection with these fees, but I have confidence in the minister to allow him to make the regulation, and if he thinks wise to change it by Order in Council when necessary.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Although we have the authority to charge ten cents per gross ton on all ships under Canadian registry, no such charge has been made since 1903, and the inspections that have been made since then have been gratuitous. The $3,200 mentioned is the revenue we have derived from ships under British registry at the rate of ten cents per ton. There is a good deal in the hon. member's remarks in regard to fees, and as he has been good enough to express confidence in the judgment of myself and the officers associated with me, I can assure him that we shall look into the matter thoroughly, and if we cannot meet his views entirely we shall at least see how far we can go.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. member for Lunenburg has abandoned a point which I think he should have pressed, and that, is the necessity for publicity in connection with these regulations. I also have confidence in the minister, but I do not see how steamship owners are to know what the regulations are unless they appear on the statute. I think the hon. member's suggestion was a good one, and the schedule should be appended to the Act. It is necessary that regulations of this kind should receive ample publicity so that the owners of vessels may be fully apprised of them. There are important regulations provided for in this Act. For example, the rules relating to the inspection of hulls and equipment of steamers, and also respecting the qualifications necessary to entitle a man to an engineer's certificate. These are matters that should not be dealt with in any haphazard manner by Orders in Council, but should appear on the statute; otherwise it is impossible to keep track of regulations. I should like to know from the minister if he does not think it possible to have these regulations go along with the Act.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I would have no objection whatever to having this scale of fees made part of the Shipping Act, but if we found it imperative to modify them-as, for instance, if they were too high-I would have to introduce at the next session a Bill to amend the Act. This, however, gives authority to the 'Governor in Council to lower or raise them as conditions warrant, and I really think it is more in the interest of shipping to leave the matter to the judgment of the Governor in Council rather than make it an inflexible statutory provision.


John Howard Sinclair: Will that appear in the statute?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


William Duff: Have the shipping companies been consulted about this schedule?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes. Publicity, of course, is given to these rates and the steamship people are notified.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are Government ships subject to inspection arid does the Government pay the fees?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not understand then why you are wanting more money. Apart from the Government ships we have not been engaged in very much shipbuilding in Canada for the last four years or so. In our province we have fewer ships than we had a few years ago. Some went out during the war and I do not think many have been built to take their places. If the inspection fees are not swelled by reason of the Government-owned ships I do not think they would be very materially increased in any other way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Duty on steamboats registered in Canada:
John Howard Sinclair: What is the purport of that clause? What fees are intended to be collected?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The scale of fees I have just been referring to, and the scale of fees before the hon. member now. In reply to the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), I mentioned a moment ago that we had the right to collect ten cents per gross ton for all vessels under Canadian register but we have not been doing so since 1903. That is the reason our revenue is so small.


John Howard Sinclair: This clause appears to authorize the collection of two scales of fees. In clause (h) of section 1, we have authority for the Governor in Council to make rules for the establishment of a scale of fees and the collection thereof. Then, in section 2, subsection 1, we read:
The Governor in Council may from time to time fix a duty to be paid yearly and every year by the owner or master of every steamboat registered in Canada.
Do I understand the minister to say that these refer to the same thing?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. gentleman is correct. The only change under clause 578 is to enable my department to establish a scale of fees and collection thereof for examining the hulls, boilers, machinery and
equipment of steamboats. The old Act did not allow us to charge any fee for the examination of plans before the boiler and engines were installed. That is a scale of fees for the examination of the plans while the scale of fees that is before the members of the committee now is that referred to in clause 643.


William Duff: Do I understand there are
two scales of fees, one to be paid before the hull is launched, and another afterwards? If not, it seems to me that subsection 1 of clause 1 is unnecessary. It is not necessary to have section 643 at all.
Mr. ,T. H. SINCLAIR:	I am afraid the
two clauses will lead to confusion. In the one case the authority given refers to the collection of fees, and in the other case it is provided that:
The Governor in Council may from time to time fix a duty to be paid yearly-
And so on. That appears to refer to something different. If the minister means to say that this refers to the same thing as the other, I think we should have the clause redrafted.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They are distinctly different. Section 643 refers to the scale of fees I have mentioned and which the hon. mejnber, I understand, has on his desk at the moment. Under clause 578, and under paragraph (h), provision is made for a different scale of fees. One scale of fees is for the examination of plans; the scale of fees we have had under discussion here refers to the inspection of boilers, hulls, life-saving equipment and the ship generally. That comes under section 643. But my department is also going to make a moderate charge under section 578 for the examination of plans. If a shipbuilder was going to build a new ship he would send the plans of the engines and boilers to the inspection branch of the Department of Marine; they would look them over, either approve or disapprove and then make a charge. That is a different charge from the one I have been referring to.


John Howard Sinclair: As I understand the minister, he is proposing two scales of fees, one for the examination of plans while the ship is under construction, and another, a yearly scale of fees, for inspection after the ship is constructed. I am sorry that he requires to take so much money from the shipbuilders because it is only complicating the business and it looks as if it was unnecessary to have these two scales.
17(58


William Duff: It seems to me that before the subsection is allowed to pass the builders of ships ought to know exactly what they would have to pay.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The charge that my department proposes to make for the detailed examination and approval of plans will be similar to the charge that Lloyd's make-it will not be any different. Here is the scale that we propose to adopt.
Examination of plans of boilers at headquarters, Ottawa, $25.
Examination of plans of lifeboats, $15.
Examination of .plans of safety valves, or other marine machinery and parts thereof, $25.
Examination of plans of life rafts and buoying apparatus, $5.
Examination of new designs of life jackets and life buoys, $5,
Stamping life jackets at manufacturer's plant, per one hundred, $5.
Stamping life belts, 25 cents each.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister propose to issue a booklet of instructions as they do at Lloyd's? The minister understands, how ships are built under the control of Lloyds Agency. The dimensions of every plank that goes into the ship is specified, and the number of rivets that are to be driven into the steel plates. All these things are specified in the book or agreed upon, and the builder makes his plan in accordance therewith he is bound to do so if he expects to pass Lloyds inspection. I do not think the minister is in a position to furnish the Canadian shipbuilders with these details. If he is not, I do not think he should take the step which is here contemplated until he is.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My department
issues numerous copies of a little booklet, and has been doing so for years, setting forth in detail the scale of charges I have just read.
Mr. ,1. H. SINCLAIR: I am not talking about the scale of charges, but the specifications with respect to the steel and other material that is to go into the ship.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Our booklet does not go into details as to- the steel that should go into the hull, and the lumber that should go into the deck of a ship. That is all very technical and I do not think it is necessary to give it; hut information respecting the regulations and the fees is disseminated regularly through the medium of this booklet. I am familiar with the Lloyd's booklet to which the hon. member refers. In our publication we do not go into as great detail.


William Duff: Does the minister know that the British Board of Trade demands an inspection of the hulls and boilers of ships before they are launched? If I understand aright the owner of every ship that is built, in order to get that vessel into the recognized class, employs an inspector of Lloyd's Agency, or of the American Bureau of Registry, who examines everything that goes into the construction of the ship-the steel plates, rivets, girders and everything of that kind. When the time arrives for the inspection of the boilers a separate inspector is employed. If the ship does not come up to the standard which is demanded by these inspectors-belonging either to Lloyd's or to the American Bureau of Registry

they will not issue the necessary certificate of classification. If the owners of ships have to pay for these inspections by either agency they should not also be compelled to pay for the Canadian Government inspection for the same purpose. The inspectors of Lloyd's and of the American Bureau of Registry are quite as capable of certifying to the character of the ship as any inspectors employed by the Canadian Marine Department, and their inspection should be sufficient for all purposes.


John Howard Sinclair: What has the
minister to say in reference to the inspection made when a ship is being built?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: When a steel ship
is being built in Canada-for instance, take the Government ships-we have our plans and specifications and standards. We have an inspector located in each yard in which a ship is being constructed and it is his duty t.o see that that ship is built according to plans and specifications. The same procedure is followed in the case of a ship which is built by a private owner. In that case also we have an inspector at the yard to see that the ship is built according to the plans and specifications.
As to inspection for insurance purposes,
I am sure my hon. friends will know-especially those who are familiar with the shipping law-that Lloyd's inspection is an entirely different one. We in this country, under the Canada Shipping Act, do not recognize the inspection of Lloyd's, and therefore vessels built in this country must be inspected by officers of the Department of Marine. Our law is a little different from the English law.


William Duff: I do not quite follow the
minister when he says that the depart-

ment does not recognize Lloyd's inspection in this country. I cannot understand that, because whenever a merchant over there wishes to charter a vessel for a cargo, either the captain or the owner of that vessel must produce a certificate from Lloyd's or from the American Bureau of Registry that the vessel is seaworthy, before the ship can be chartered. In view of the close and searching inspection which is made by both the agencies to which I have referred, the owners should not be put to the necessity of having a separate inspection by officers of the Canadian Marine Department. It is all right to have the hulls or the boilers of ships inspected year by year; but in the case of a new ship which, before her first voyage, receives her class certificate, there is no need for a separate inspection in this country; the inspection by Lloyd's or the American Bureau of Registry should be sufficient.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If we could have
in this country the same efficient inspection that is always made by the inspectors of Lloyd's who are present in the yards of the United Kingdom where steel ships are being built, I would agree with my hon. friend; but the inspection for classification that Lloyd's perform, while it is all right for that purpose, is not considered by the Canadian Government sufficiently stringent for us to adopt here. Therefore while a new ship is inspected by one of Lloyd's men and classified as Al, she cannot leave port until the inspector of the Department of Marine goes on board and inspects the boilers, engines and equipment and issues a certificate, this precaution being taken by this Government for the safety and efficiency of our shipping. But if we could have the same careful and expert classification by Lloyd's as obtains in the United Kingdom, I would be inclined to agree with my hon. friend's view.


William Duff: Does the minister imply that the agents of Lloyd's in this country are not as well qualified as their agents in the Old Country?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Quite so.


William Duff: It seems to me that Lloyd's would not appoint agents in this country unless they were fully qualified to do the work. Perhaps the minister and I are a little at cross purposes. If I understand the scale of fees which he proposes to collect under clause (h), those fees are for the inspection of plans before the vessel is built. I can quite understand, as the minister said a moment ago, that before the
vessel sails it is necessary for his inspectors to go on board to inspect the hull, boilers and equipment, but in view of the fact that Lloyd's have a man in attendance while the ship is being built, and that the owner and the American Bureau of Registry also have inspectors on the job, I cannot understand why it is necessary for the Government to have an inspector to examine and approve the plans. It seems to me that the man engaged by the owner of the ship and Lloyd's agent are quite capable of passing upon the plans. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to have two sets of inspectors to pass on the plans.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not agree
with the minister's statement that Lloyds inspectors are inferior to the inspectors of the Marine Department. I do not want to say anything against the latter, in fact I do not know very much about them, but they have not got a reputation among our business people that would justify their being put on a higher grade than Lloyds inspectors. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is quite right in saying that if we impose two inspections upon the building of a ship here we are going to create confusion. A ship is built, we will say, under Lloyds inspection and theii officer examines the plans and sees that the work is carried on under Lloyds rules. But when the ship is under construction or is finished, the Canadian inspector of the Marine Department walks aboard, and if he finds fault there will be complications. I think the minister ought to agree that when a builder chooses to have his ship built under Lloyd's inspection-which is the best in the world-the Department of Marine will accept the certificate of Lloyds agent during construction or upon completion of the vessel. Otherwise I do not see how it would be possible for a shipbuilder to get along with two inspectors. I would like the minister to explain how he expects two sets of inspectors to always agree on what ought to be done in connection with the construction of a ship.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The question under discussion now has Teally nothing whatever to do with this Bill, which is merely for the purpose of giving the Governor in Council power and authority to charge certain fees for inspection of plans and for the inspection of ships, we have not under discussion any clause that would lead the committee into a debate regarding the relative merits of Lloyds inspection and our inspection. If Parliament at any time in the future deem it wise to accept Lloyds

classification, which is solely for insurance purposes, and do not want any inspection of their own, then I would have to bring in an entirely different Bill, one to amend certain sections in the Shipping Act doing away altogether with Canadian Government inspection. I do not think that any Government would desire to do that. There is no conflict whatever between the inspection that Lloyd's make and the inspection that the Canadian Government make; these two inspections have been going on now for thirty or forty years.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister mean that his department has been inspecting the building of hulls for forty years?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, and probably for fifty years.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not understand that that has been the practice. I think that this proposal to inspect a ship while it is being built is entirely new, and that prior to this date the inspection was done by Lloyd's inspector.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot find any. thing on the statute books to warrant the statement just made by my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair). So far as I have been able to go back, the inspection by an officer of the Canadian Government has been in force for thirty years anyway. If it is material I can get the exact date when the inspection was instituted, but I think it would be more like forty or fifty years ago. I am not seeking to change a single line of the Shipping Act except to enable the Governor in Council to raise the fee of ten cents per gross ton-which has not been charged vessels under Canadian registry since 1903-to the scale I have placed before the committee, and to authorize another scale of fees for the examination of plans. I do not think it is fair that a man who, we will say, has some new design of boiler or engine should send his plans to the department at Ottawa and ask our men to spend days going over the details of those plans without expense to himself. The British Government make a charge for such service, and I think it is quite in order, especially when we are trying to increase our revenue, to stop this gratuitous service, which has been performed since 1903, and to charge these fees in order to recoup the Government the expense incurred, which during the fiscal year we estimate will amount to $105,000. It is rather difficult for me to understand why successive Ministers of Marine since 1903

have allowed the Inspection Department to do this work gratuitously. It may have been because our tonnage was not very large, but with the great increase in Canadian registration during the last few years it would be unfair to ask the Government to continue to perform that work for nothing.
The hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) raises another question altogether when he asks:	Is it
wise for Canada not to adopt Lloyd's classification? If I follow him correctly, he thinks that the Government ought to so change the Shipping Act that we would accept that classification without insisting on any inspection by our own department. My hon. friend says that Lloyd's inspectors are superior in knowledge and efficiency to the inspectors of the Marine Department. I do not pose as a technical man, but I do come in contact from time to time with, let us say, Mr. McDonnel, chairman, Board of Steamship Inspection, and I have found him to be very well posted, as all our inspectors are. I am not here to-night to make any unfair criticism of Lloyd's; in any case, that is not the matter under discussion. But the inspection that Lloyd's make in Canada certainly is not as efficient as the inspection of similar ships in the United Kingdom. I would not want to recommend to the Governor in Council an amendment of the Canada Shipping Act which would do away with Canadian inspection and adopt the inspection of Lloyd's.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not want you to do away with the Canadian inspection;
I want you to make either inspection optional and to confine ourselves to one i inspection.	-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I repeat that this matter does not come under any of the clauses of this Bill. I shall be very glad to bear in mind what hon. members have said and to bring the matter before council. If the Government regarded such a proposal with favour, I would have to introduce legislation to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Mr. McMiASTER:	In discussing paragraph (h) of the new section 578 the minister spoke as if the establishment of the scale of fees referred merely to the examination of plans of hulls, boilers and machinery. It goes further than that; it refers also to the inspection of steamboats, their machinery and equipment during construction.

Mr, BALLANTYNiE: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This imposition of new fees in connection with ships is rather suggestive of the difficulties connected with the Government's being in this business at all. They own sixty-three ships now; they are a very important factor in the carrying trade of this country, and if we were so cruel as to attribute to the minister the ambitions of his competitors we might say that he could introduce legislation which would put everybody else out of business; which would make ships and their operation under private ownership so expensive that competitors could not go into the market and get business. It is objectionable that a private individual has to pay for the inspection of a ship whereas the Government have not, and that the private individual who imports the material to go into a ship pays duty upon it while the Government pay no duty at all upon the material which goes into their ships. The minister may say that the Government do pay duty, but they pay it by simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other; consequently they are not in legitimate competition with private enterprise. Private individuals should in this respect be put upon exactly the same footing as the Government. We should not pass legislation surrounding our own property with conditions which are favourable to ourselves and against our competitors. There should be a fair field and no favour.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the minister to say that this Bill provides for Canadian inspection of ships during construction. Suppose a Canadian builder disregards Lloyd's inspection altogether and builds his ship under the supervision of the officials of the Marine Department, how will that effect the insurance of the ship after she is built?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government are not in the insurance business. Every ship built in Canada has to be subjected to Lloyd's inspection and Lloyd's classification; otherwise the owner cannot get the required insurance. I remind hon. members that this Bill does not introduce anything new in connection with inspection of ships. I am not changing the law that has existed for many years; I am simply trying to change the fees.


John Howard Sinclair: I refer to paragraph (h)-which certainly is a new provision-with regard to inspection during 113
construction. I want to say to the minister that I know what I am talking about. To my knowledge, Canadian officials have not been inspecting ships during construction, but Lloyd's officials have. When the ship was completed in accordance with the requirements of Lloyd's inspection, she was entitled to classification and to insurance in London. We are doing a very serious injury to shipping if we place ourselves in such a position that we shall not be entitled to these things; under those conditions it would not be possible to successfully carry on shipping in Canada. Will the minister say that vessels which are being built by his department are subject to Lloyd's inspection during construction?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Then if the minister himself finds it necessary to build his ships under the control of Lloyd's - inspection, why should we set up machinery in Canada for a second inspection? The reason why the minister has his ships inspected by Lloyd's is that he finds it necessary to get a classification and to entitle his ships to insurance. Well, 9 p.m. if it is essential that inspection be made by Lloyd's, what is the good of the Canadian inspection?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have all respect for the hon. member and for his knowledge of shipping, but surely he will give me credit for knowing what I am talking about to-night. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I have endeavoured to do so over and over again, and if the hon. member does not understand my language, if he does not understand my English, it is no fault of mine. I will endeavour once more to make it as clear as the noonday sun. It is an old provision of the Canada Shipping Act that all vessels of Canadian registry coming to Canadian ports which have not been inspected within a year must submit to inspection by officials of the Marine Department.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not speaking of that law at all.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member is trying to convey the impression to the committee that the authority we are seeking, for the inspection of ships under construction in Canada is something entirely new. That authority is as old as the hon. member. We have it in the Canada Shipping Act. What we are asking is authority for the establishment of a scale of fees



for examining the hulls, boilers and equipment of steamers, so that charges can be made for the necessary time spent on that work. Our tonnage has very materially increased in recent years, and it has cost us to inspect these ships $105,000 a year, whereas on the other hand we only got in revenue the paltry sum of $3,200. I am asking authority to amend the law that limits us to 10 cents per gross ton, and for the establishment of two scales of fees, so that we can make revenue balance expenditure on this work. The question of Lloyd's classification for insurance purposes has no more to do with this Act than with oleomargarine. While I want at all times to be as courteous as possible and to give all necessary information, I think it is unfair to lead a minister away from the Bill before the committee into a discussion as to whether Canada should or should not accept Lloyd's classification and do away with inspection both of ships under construction and those that have been built.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose it is my fault if I have not made myself clear to the minister. We were told during the debate that paragraph (h) was new, and it is marked new.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: New as to fees only.


John Howard Sinclair: That is the clause to which I have been trying to direct the minister's attention. It provides for payment of fees for the inspection of steamboats and of their machinery and equipment during construction. The minister says that is nothing new, that is as old as I am. Will the minister be good enough to read the section in the old Act which gives him authority to make that inspection.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Under clause 578 of the Canada Shipping Act we have no authority to levy fees for examining plans of the hulls and so forth such as we are asking for here. We are seeking power by paragraph
(h)	to establish a scale of fees.
Mr. J,. H. SINCLAIR: I am not talking about fees but about inspection. Will the minister he kind enough to read that section of the old Act which gives authority to the department to inspect hulls of steamboats and their machinery and equipment during construction? That is a plain ques'-tion, and I think the minister understands it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Clause 588 of the Canada Shipping Act reads as follows:
The master or owner of every steamboat liable to inspection under this part shall cause

the boiler and machinery and the hull and equipment thereof, or the boiler and machinery alone, as the case may be, to be inspected at least once every year, and shall deliver one of the certificates thereof to the chief officer of Customs at the port where such inspection is made, or at which such steamboat arrives next after such inspection, when it has not been made in such port.
That applies to new vessels as well as old.


John Howard Sinclair: That does not answer my question. Everybody admits that the Government has long had authority to inspect a steamboat already constructed, but paragraph (h) gives the Government power to collect fees for carrying on an inspection during construction, which is a very different thing. It is an inspection similar to the one Lloyd's carry on, and I want the minister to read the section from the old Act that gives him authority to make that inspection.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: When a ship is under construction-it has happened in dozens of cases-the builder wants the inspection made during construction rathqjr than after all the boilers and engines and equipment have been installed.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister, then, admits that this is new.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, that is not new.


John Howard Sinclair: Then will the minister read the section in the old Act giving Parliament authority to make an inspection during the construction of the ship?


William Duff: It seems to me that the minister and my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) are speaking somewhat at cross purposes. The minister is referring entirely to the inspection of hulls and boilers after ships have been completed, but my hon. friend wants to know what section of the old Act gives the department authority to make an inspection during construction. I think he is quite correct in saying that there is no such authority in the old Act. The clause which the minister read refers only to ships which have been launched, but paragraph (h) refers to the examination of hulls, boilers and machinery during construction. I agree with my hon. friend that it is impossible to have two inspections of a ship under construction going on at the same time. The Canadian Government inspector and Lloyd's inspector cannot be expected to agree, and if this clause passes and a regulation is made whereby the Government inspector may inspect the hull at the same time that Lloyd's inspector is in-

specting the ship, there is going to be trouble. I think the minister would be well advised to postpone his inspection until after Lloyd's inspector and the inspector for the American Bureau of Registry have made theirs. I do not think it is wise for the department's officials to be on board a ship during construction, when two other inspectors are there. Lloyd's inspection is not only for the purposes of insurance, but so that a ship will get better freights, because it is well known in shipping circles that a vessel that is not classed at Lloyd s will not be chartered by many shippers of goods, I would ask the minister not to have any inspection made until after Lloyd s men have left the ship. Let them do the first inspection and then the minister's men can go aboard and pass upon the work that has been done by the owner and Lloyd's men. If he adopts this course he will find that it will obviate a great many difficulties. But to have the two inspectors on board at the same time is merely to create endless trouble. I make this suggestion as one which would be satisfactory to the minister's officials and to the owners as well.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If this Bill never passed at all the inspection by the Canadian Government would go on just the same as it has been carried on for years.


William Duff: During construction?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Certainly. I may inform my hon. friend that builders of ships have asked the Marine Department to have an inspection of boilers and engines made during construction. The builders very much prefer to have the inspection made during the construction of ships rather than after the ships have been finished. There has never been any clash or controversy between the department and Lloyd's, whose classification, as hon. members know, is only for insurance purposes.


William Duff: And for the purpose of obtaining freights.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: But suppose we do not pass this Bill, what then? The inspection of ships under construction in yards, and the annual inspection of boilers, engines and everything else, will go on just the same as ever in the past. This Bill has nothing to do with that at all. All the authority I am seeking under this Bill is to establish a scale of fees so that we may get a revenue of $105,000 a year. That is the sole object of the measure. If hon. members say: "We will not pass your Bill," 113*
the inspection, notwithstanding that determination, would go on just the same.


William Duff: Do I under tand the minister to say that last year he could send his inspectors into shipyards to inspect the hulls of ships during construction? I know he could send inspectors to any foundry where a boiler or an engine was being made, but the minister will not tell me that his men could go aboard a ship and examine the hull before the completion of the vessel.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Certainly.


William Duff: I have never heard of such a practice.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister says that this section authorizes the inspector to inspect the hull and machinery of a ship during construction. While it is true that the machinery has been inspected for a good many years, I say there has (been no authority in the Act prior to this to allow the minister's officials to inspect the hull of a ship during construction. I have asked the minister several times if there is such an authority, and if he agrees with me that there is no such authority, then I think he ought also to concur in my view that this is a new provision. Indeed, it is marked "new" on the margin of the Bill, and all I want the minister to do is-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Agree with you.


John Howard Sinclair: -to tell us whether it is new or not.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Nothing would
please me more than to be able to agree with my hon. friend, but I am sorry to say I cannot do so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then, if it is not new, where is the old provision? Where is the old clause corresponding with this one marked "new"? We contend that this is a new provision. This clause (h) has come from the department, marked "new", and if we are wrong in supposing that it is really new, then it is the simplest matter for the minister to read the provision in the old Act which corresponds with this one.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The establishment of a scale of fees for examination of plans is a brand new provision, but as regards the examination of boilers and engines either during the construction or when the ship is finished, there is nothing new about the clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minister went a little too for when he said that this clause which is marked "new" was as old as some hon. gentlemen, for that is not so. He also told us that he might as well talk about oleomargarine as to talk about this matter. Now, it will not do for ministers who are comparatively new in the House to become too clever all at once. This is new legislation, and it is not yet law, and it will not do for the minister to tell us dogmatically that something is law which is not and never was on the statute book.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. gentleman is older in years than I am, but I want to inform him that I have never been accused of discourtesy in this House or elsewhere. The hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) practically told me that I did not know what I was talking about, and that is why I spoke as I did. I have endeavoured this evening, as I always do, to give to hon. members as courteously, clearly and explicitly as possible, all the information at my disposal. I have -answered some questions fifteen or twenty times to-night, and my only wish is that it were humanly possible foT me to make myself more clear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We want the minister and those who so lustily cheer him to understand that all we have said is that there is a new provision in this Bill Which was never law before. The clause is marked "new," and when we draw this fact to the attention of the minister in support of our contention that we -are dealing with something that is new we are told that we do not know what we are talking about, -and that this provision is something in the vicinity of sixty years old-older than Confederation. That is not the fact, and we do not intend to be stigmatized as being ignorant of something which is well known to every hon. member. If the minister is too high strung to admit that he made a mistake-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I did not make a mistake.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, the -minister cannot produce the original of clause (h), and it is evident therefore that the clause is a new one.


William Duff: Let me read to my hon. friends opposite who were cheering a few moments ago clause 588 of the Act:
The master or owner of every steamboat liable to inspection under this Part shall cause

the boiler and machinery and the hull and equipment thereof, or the boiler and machinery alone, as the case may be, to be inspected at least once every year.
That clause distinctly states that the minister's officials have power to compel the owner of a vessel to have the hull, boiler and machinery inspected once a year, -but there is nothing in it that supports the minister's contention thait his officials at the present time can go on -board a ship during construction and compel the owners to submit plans before the vessel is completed. Under no section of the Shipping Act can the inspectors go to the office of the builders and call for plans on which a ship is to be built. All they are empowered to do under section 588 is to inspect the ship once a year, and unless the minister can show some clause that provides for inspection of the hull during -construction he -cannot possibly contend that clause (h) in this Bill is not new.


John Howard Sinclair: I am sorry if I gave my hon. friend the impression that I thought he was1 ignorant of the subject he was discussing. I had no intention whatever to cast any reflection on -the minister's intelligence; I have the very highest respect for him and I should like to assist him in passing a good Marine Act. That is my sole purpose in taking part in this discussion at all, -and I do not want the minister to think for a moment that I hkve been trying to worry him or to give him any additional trouble. My fear was that if he was setting up two methods of inspection it would complicate the building of ships. My other trouble was that the ships built in Canada under Canadian inspection, if the officers of his department insisted that their inspection be submitted to, might not be -entitled to the usual marine insurance, which is a vital -question in connection with the running of ships. That was the real -question that I was trying to get understood between the minister and members on this side of the House. As my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) says, it is quite clear now to everybody that this is a new section.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Not at all.


John Howard Sinclair: It is absolutely new in regard to the authority to charge fees to inspect ships during construction. There never was anything in the marine law to authorize it. If there was I would ask the minister to point it out.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will point it out, and I will repeat what I said. I am, of

course, Scotch, like my hon. friend from North Cape Breton, and I really do not always grasp questions as quickly as I should.
1 will say again that there is not a line in this Bill that is changing any regulations established under the Shipping Act for the inspection of boilers or engines or anything else during the construction of the ship or when the ship is finished. These matters are not in this Bill. If the chairman liked he could rule hon. members out of order because the discussion has nothing to do with the Bill. The only matter before the committee is the question of fees, and is as to whether we shall get authority for the Governor in Council to change the scale of fees. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) says we have no authority to inspect the hulls, boilers or engines of ships during construction. I would refer him to chapter 113, section 578, of the Canada Shipping Act, which provides that:
The Governor in Council may make rules and regulations-
(c) for the inspection of hulls and equipment of steamboats.


William Duff: Not during construction.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The regulations call for inspection during the construction of these ships. Furthermore we would very much displease and inconvenience the shipbuilders of Canada if we refused to allow the engines, boilers or life-saving equipment to be inspected during the construction of the ships. We will say that a ship is finished and ready to go to sea. The inspector of the Marine Department goes on board and says: "Your boiler does not comply with the regulations of the department." The boiler is in, all the expense *has been incurred in regard to it, but the inspector says: "I cannot grant you the certificate necessary for the clearance of your vessel because the marine boiler does not coincide with the regulations of the department." It might be that you would have to order that boiler out of the ship. I have known that to be done since I have been Minister of Marine. To avoid such difficulties, shipbuilders, 1 think wisely, say to my department: "A ship is being built; will you be good enough to send your inspector to inspect the hull, engines, boilers and life-saving equipment during the construction of the ship?" We gladly do that. The hon. member for North Cape Breton asked me to quote the authority. I have quoted the authority.


William Duff: We are still at cross purposes. I admit that the owner of the vessel can send word to the Marine Departr ment while the vessel is under construction and ask for an inspection of the ship from time'to time. That is a wise thing for the owner to do and I know it is done. But there is nothing in the law to compel the owner to do that. The owner need not send for the inspector until the ship is launched. The minister must know as well as I do that if his inspectors go on board from time to time while a ship is being built there is no necessity for their going on the ship after she is launched. If they have inspected the hull during construction why should they go on board when the ship is ready for sea, or why should they be on board while she is on her trial trip or after she is fully equipped? I think the minister is wise in saying that it is a good thing for an owner to do that if he likes, but there is no section in the law that compels the owner of a vessel to send for an inspector from the Marine Department If the Marine Department sends an official without the consent of the owner, the owner need not let him on board for an inspection. If the minister is going to pass this clause to set up a different scale of fees for the inspection of plans and ships during construction, he must amend clause 588 to provide that the ships must be inspected during construction. I think that ought to make it quite clear. I have no objection to the minister setting a scale of fees by this clause but in order to carry out subsection (h) he must amend the Act. If he does not amend the Act the scale of fees is no good; he cannot collect unless the owner is willing to pay.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the law is that inspection during construction is optional, there is no objection to clause (h), section 578, because all the Government asks is that they shall have a scale of fees which they can charge for the service rendered when the shipbuilder asks that the service be rendered.


William Duff: I admit that what the hon. member for Drome (Mr. McMaster) says is correct, but the owner has to pay certain fees while the ship is being constructed.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If he asks for the inspection.


William Duff: Whether he asks for it or not.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


William Duff: Well, put it that way; if he asks for an inspection while the ship is

under construction he must pay certain foes. But after the ship is launched another inspection has to take place and another scale of fees has to be paid by the owner. There is no necessity for these two inspections. It is all right for the minister to say that an inspection should take place either while the ship is being constructed or after she is launched, but why should there be two inspections and why should the owner be asked to pay two sets of fees?	i i	j


Mr. McKBNZIE:: I have in my hand a book called the Revised Statutes of Canada. These Revised Statutes consist of four volumes and I hold in my hand the third volume containing chapter 113. The Canada Shipping Act. In that Canada Shipping Act I find section 578. I also have before me Bill No. 49 which is to amend the Act, and the section that we are amending is No. 578. There is no doubt in the world that the 578 of the Bill is the same as and identical with the 578 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. In section 578 of the old Act are to be found subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). In the new Bill I find subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h); and in the margin of the Bill appears the word "new."


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is new.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In these days when
we are practising economy why was that word " new " printed there at the expense of the country if there was no need for it? I think we are right after all, and I would advise the hon. gentleman to give up the idea that he knows everything about shipping and confine his attention to oleomargarine.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not want to delay the committee, but the hon. member must not convey a wrong impression. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to tell the hon. member once more, that when he informs the committee that is a new clause, it is a fact of which everybody is perfectly *aware. I have admitted that it was a new clause, but the difference between certain hon. gentlemen opposite and myself is because they are trying to make out that the new clause is going to alter the inspection of ships during construction, or after. I say it has nothing whatever to do with it. The new clause-and I admit it is brand new-pertains to the scale of fees to be paid, and to nothing else.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, and Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 39, to amend the Loan Companies Act, 1914.
Jacques Bureau: I think the Minister of Finance ought to give some explanation about the principle of this Bill. If I understand rightly loan companies, under the old Act, were obliged to make a return to the minister showing their financial condition, and if the minister was not satisfied with the statement he applied to the Treasury Board to appoint an inspector to look into the affairs of the company. It is mow proposed to make a change whereby the Superintendent of Insurance will make an inspection and report to the minister. The other powers of the Superintendent of Insurance are not increased, but the responsibility which heretofore rested on the Treasury Board will hereafter be vested in the minister, and the appointment of an inspector which was heretofore made by the Treasury Board will now be made by the Superintendent of Insurance. I would like the minister to explain why the change is made and what causes have brought it about. I understand that power is given by the Bill to even suspend the operations of a company if that company's financial statement is not such as to protect the shareholders or those dealing with the company.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The change
that is made in the law is to place loan and trust companies-because there is another Bill on the Order Paper dealing with trust companies-on exactly the same footing. The whole idea of the legislation in both instances is to place loan and trust companies in the same position that insurance companies are in at the present time. We have a regular and proper inspection of insurance companies, but there is no such inspection of loan companies or of trust companies. Perhaps I had better read the section in the Act as it formerly stood which deals with this matter:
The Treasury Board upon the report of the minister may appoint some competent person as inspector to investigate the affairs and management of the company, who shall report thereon to the minister. The Treasury Board may also prescribe the manner and the extent to which the investigation shall be conducted.
The House will observe that a special ,investigation is to be made only when the

minister requests it, and on his request the Treasury Board may grant that inspection. The old section went on to say:
It shall be the duty of all officers and agents of the company to produce for the examination of any such inspector all books and documents in their custody or power-
And so on, in order that the inspection may be expedited. As matters worked out that really meant that there was no inspection at all. Of course ordinarily there is nothing to draw conditions to the minister's attention; and anything which would indicate that an inspection of any particular company is necessary would not transpire until the harm has been done. The situation in connection with insurance companies is very different, because in the case of those companies properly qualified inspectors, as a matter of departmental routine, make an annual inspection; and if anything improper develops as a result of those inspections, or if there is any necessity for a special investigation, that necessity at once becomes apparent and the special investigation is held. The new section simply puts the loan and trust companies in the same position as insurance companies.
As to the matter which my hon. friend has pointed out, the suspension of a license or the giving of a limiting license, that-provision also is taken from the Insurance Act, and of course its object is perfectly clear to hon. gentlemen. If it is found that the affairs of the company are in such condition that it ought not to continue to be allowed to do business or to receive further public moneys-that the public ought to be protected from its operations-it stops. On the other hand, if the business of the company is getting into a position where it requires special inspection with a possibility 

perhaps, a probability-that the company cannot pull through, instead of giving the license for the year, the license is given again following the practice in the Insurance Act-for a limited period.


Jacques Bureau: The effect might be to
declare the company insolvent also.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under the
Winding-Up Act. The effect under that Act would be to allow the winding-up provisions to apply.
Motion agred to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Definition-"Superintendent".


Jacques Bureau: I see that the Superintendent of Insurance and his staff are to
perform the duties of inspection not only of insurance companies but also of loan and trust companies. Is it the intention of the minister to designate some special person to make the inspections of loan and trust companies?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not expected that it will be necessary to make any special provision. Altogether we have now only some thirty trust and loan companies to be looked after under this Act, and they are comparatively small in their operations.
It may be necessary perhaps to get a little more clerical help, but at the present time we expect to be able to look after the work with the existing organization.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Examination and report on condition of company, etc.
Jacques Bureau: I notice that this section involves a radical change in the law. Under the old Act the minister made the recommendation to the Treasury Board, and that board appointed the inspector. To-day, we as a Parliament give power to the superintendent and he directs any one of his staff to inquire into the business of these companies. I do not think that is a move forward. Of course, the superintendent reports back to the minister, but it seems to me that the minister, or, if he does not want to assume the responsibility, the Governor in Council ought to have the power to appoint the man who shall make these inspections if the superintendent himself does not make them. Here we are delegating power that heretofore rested in the Treasury Board, and that board acted upon the recommendation of the minister.
I do not object to the inspector making the report to the minister, and the minister taking action upon that report, but I do not think Parliament should appoint a superintendent of insurance, whoever he may be, to be the man to choose the inspectors who will investigate and report. Because, after all, their reports will be the only evidence the minister will have upon which to determine his course of action.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We already have what has proved to be a very efficient organization to look after a very much more difficult business, having regard to investments. insurance ratios, and the like, than this business, and we are pimply applying existing machinery that has been tried and found sufficient. The superintendent of insurance has proved himself to be well versed in this kind of work, and is, I think,

in a very much better position to say what examination should take place than any minister, because the superintendent is thoroughly cognizant of the details of the business and is charged with full responsibility. I think the hon. gentleman will find that this section as drawn will work out perfectly well.


Jacques Bureau: But it comes back to the general system established by this Government of appointing commissions-we won't discuss that subject now-and such commissions must be responsible. But this amendment in effect says that Parliament is to appoint the superintendent of insurance as the man who shall delegate his representative to make inspections. We all know that it will be impossible for the superintendent himself to personally inspect all our loan, trust and insurance companies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that at one time there was a good deal of difficulty regarding our insurance companies, but I do not think there has been any since the passing of the Act which was introduced by the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding). This is no new departure; we are simply adopting what has proved to he very satisfactory. The corresponding section of the Insurance Act provides that the superintendent of insurance shall visit personally, or cause a duly qualified member of his staff to visit, at least once in each year, the head office of each company. This amendment is merely applying what has been proved to work out excellently in connection with the insurance business.


William Stevens Fielding: It is hardly correct for my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to say that the superintendent can appoint anybody to make inspections under the Act; he must appoint one of his own staff, who are public officials appointed in the same way as all other such officials.' The difference between this and the existing law is that under the existing law there might be inspection on any occasion when attention was drawn to some suspicious circumstances in connection with companies of this class; but now with the larger number of companies and with more public attention drawn to their operations, the hon. minister says: Instead of having an occasional inspection we will have one annually, and rather than create a new position I am going to make the present staff of the superintendent of insurance do [DOT] 
the work. I do not want my hon. friend from Three Rivers to give the minister a chance to appoint another man.


Jacques Bureau: But the microbe of extravagance is gradually crossing the floor of this House.
Mr. MoMASTER: If I mistake not, banks have to supply certain information to the Government month by month. I would ask the minister whether he has considered the advisability-apparently from this Bill he has not- of placing trust companies under similar obligations. Of course, there is certain information about notes and that sort of thing which trust companies could not give. But I rather think that the business of trust companies comes nearer to that of the banks than it does to that of insurance companies, and I would like to hear the minister's view as to the wisdom of assimilating the returns and reports required from trust companies to those required from banks and of insisting upon the same requirements concerning audits and so on in each case. My feeling is that many trust companies merely transact banking business which, under the regulations, the banks with which they are associated are unable to perform.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
doubt that the banking regulations are very excellent regulations, and also that they cost a good deal of money. The returns are voluminous, by reason of the extent of the ramifications otf the banking business. The main operations of the trust companies consist in looking after the investment of trust funds; the larger amount of their investments is in first mortgages and approved bonds, municipal or governmental.
Their real assets and invest-
10 p.m. ments, therefore, are more like those of the insurance companies than like those of the banks. However,
I think my hon. friend will agree that we are now taking effective steps to extend our jurisdiction over trust companies and to provide adequate protection for the public.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand it, our general statute provides for an interest rates of five per cent only, but in most cases the loan companies charge a much higher rate than that. Very often if a man is behind in his payments he has to pay compound interest. If the company has an idea of (foreclosing they may hand the mortgage to counsel, and on that account an additional charge of $20 or $25 is laid against the man who borrowed the money

when it comes to settle up. These things are onerous to the poor man who has to borrow, and I suggest that close inspection be made of these transactions with a view to seeing that the conditions of the loan are not all one-sided, as is very often the case in connection with loans made on mortgage by loan companies.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 70A-special report where assets are deficient:
John Howard Sinclair: Some of the language of this section seems to be rather clumsy. I suggest that the words "be held to be unauthorized" be struck out and that the word "cease" be substituted therefor, so that the sentence will read, "and the company shall thereupon cease to transact further business. We can authorize a company to transact business, but I do not think that we have jurisdiction to "unauthorize" a company to transact business.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) moved that Bill No. 38, to amend the Trust Companies Act, 1914, be read the second time.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Examination and report on conditions of company.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg to move to amend subsection (2) of 70A, by striking out in the eleventh line of page 2 of the Bill the words " be held to be unauthorized" and substituting therefor the word "cease."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to,
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) moved that Bill No. 58, to amend the Civil 'Service Insurance Act, be now read the second time.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Authority to insure extended to persons in the navy:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain how this differs from the old Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are increasing the maximum amount of insurance that can be carried from $5,000 to $10,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section is extending the benefits of the scheme to persons in the navy, which we are abolishing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The old Act,
as I recollect it, applied only to civil and military employees. We are now extending it to the naval employees.


Jacques Bureau: There is no navy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, there will be a few persons.


Jacques Bureau: We are practically
being asked to vote money for naval officers who are not now on the strength; they have been dismissed. We are extending the benefits of the insurance scheme to a service which has just been abolished. I want to be logical. I want to know whether we are extending the Act to the naval service which has been abolished or to a new naval service that is to be created hereafter.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Perhaps my colleague will allow me to answer that. The naval service has not been abolished. It is simply being reorganized and put on a more efficient basis. I shall have much more to say on this matter when the Naval Estimates are up.


Mr. VIEN:: Are there any persons in the naval service who will come under this Act?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Thomas Vien: The old Act did not extend to them. Is that the only change being made?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only change by this section.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether persons in the naval service would include not only those in the navy but the merchant marine, and those employed on dredges, tugs, and boats like the Lady Grey, the Montcalm, the Stanley, and other Government boats?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The object is to extend the benefits to all Civil Service em-

ployees. The old Act was not sufficiently broad in its terms, although as a matter of fact some Naval Department employees were eligible for insurance under this scheme.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then it would cover
those who are in the service of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. It extends only to civil servants and permanent officials of the militia and navy,


John Howard Sinclair: This section applies to those who were appointed to a permanent position in any branch of the public service after April 1, 1893. Why was the date fixed rather than any other?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Civil Service Insurance Act was passed in 1893. Up to 1914 the maximum amount of insurance that could be carried was $2,000, but the Act was amended in that year extending the maximum to $5,000. There has been no change since 1914.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister did not catch my question. This section applies to all those who were appointed to permanent positions in any branch of the service after the 1st day of April, 1893. Why is that date fixed?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It takes in all employees who were appointed to permanent positions in any branch of the service after 1893. I cannot say at the moment why any one previously appointed should not be brought in, unless it has something to do with the age tables.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What happens to the man in the service who, being under the impression that he is filling a permanent position, is removed from the service? Is he still entitled to insurance protection?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the appropriations made by this Parliament cover all the employees who come under this section?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, that is the underlying idea.


[Stage Direction]
Seotion agreed to.
On section 3-additional power to make regulations.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the object of this section?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The object is to enable the person insured to provide for

his dependents; the section provides that the money will not be frittered away. It will be paid in such a way that the dependents will get the full benefit of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both this clause and the last are really intended to ensure the permanency of the service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This legislation really adds, without expense, to the attractiveness and the permanency of the service. The fund carries itself.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand this to be akin to the ordinary insurance. I may confess to the minister that I do not know much about the matter. Does the man pay anything to the Government for the protection he gets? In an ordinary company he has to pay a premium and be subject to a health examination. When a man comes under this scheme is he also subject to such examination; does he contribute anything annually during his lifetime to the sustenance of the fund by way of a premium, and does any premium which he may pay bear any proportion to the amount for 'which he is insured?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It does. The scheme is self-supporting; it is supported entirely by premiums received. It is run like an insurance company, but the premiums are somewhat lower than those in regular insurance companies. For example, a man in the Givil Service taking insurance at the age of forty-five pays monthly $2.13 per thousand for his insurance as against $2.63 in the ordinary company. The proof that the fund is selfsustaining lies in the fact that the reserve to-day is intact. The fund carried the insurance of the civil servants who went to the war and satisfied war claims to the extent of $151,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are they all death
claims?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the minister tell us what percentage of the civil servants have taken advantage of this scheme?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot say at the moment.


Mr. CAHILL:: The premiums are about 18 per cent less than in ordinary companies?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I might cite
some figures to the hon. gentleman. A civil servant coming in at twenty pays per month *

86 cents per thousand, while the minimum rate in ordinary insurance companies is $1.19. The man of sixty pays $4.60 per thousand under this scheme as against $5.59 in outside companies. This is a cheap form of insurance, and it is possible to make it cheap because there are no expenses in connection with agents.


John Howard Sinclair: Does this apply to the Outside Service?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


OLEOMARGARINE ACT 1919 AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. S. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
(Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919, Chapter twenty-four of the Statutes of 1919, second session, and to provide:
1. That section three of the said Act be amended so as to extend the time during which the manufacture In and importation of oleomargarine into Canada is permitted until the thirty-first day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one. and to extend the time during which the offering for sale, the sale, and the having in possession for sale of oleomargarine is permitted until the first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
2. That section eight of the said Act be amended to provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to the importation, manufacture, inspection, marking, advertising and! sale of oleomargarine, and the seizure and confiscation of apparatus and materials used, or intended to be used, in the manufacture, treatment, or manipulation of oleomargarine in contravention of the said Act or of any regulation thereunder; and that such regulations may prescribe a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars recoverable upon summary conviction for the violation of any regulation made under the provisions of the said section.
3.	That section nine of the said Act be amended to provide that the penalty for violation of the provisions of the said section shall be enforcible upon summary conviction, and further that in no case shall the minimum penalty be less than fifty dollars.
William Stevens Fielding: Explain;


Mr. TOLMIE:: Mr. Chairman, it is
necessary to introduce this resolution asking for permission to bring in a Bill for the reason that the Act of 1919 remains in force only until August 31, 1920, in so far as the importation and manufacture of oleo are concerned. Permission is also given to have this material in possession until March, 1921. The object of the Bill will be to extend this privilege for the period of one year. Under section 8 of
the Act of 1919, the Governor in Council is permitted to make regulations respecting the importation, manufacture, sale, seizure and confiscation of apparatus, etc. To this we propose to add, marking and advertising. The application of the penalty of the old Act was from 25 cents per pound up to 50 cents per pound of oleo held illegally and a fine of not less than $10. This has been increased to not less than $50. Up to 1918 no oleo was permitted to be manufactured in, or imported into, this country. Legislation was necessary, or was considered necessary at that time, to permit both the manufacture and import, for the reason that butter was extremely high in price and fats were very scarce. We find that these conditions .still prevail, and there has been a strong demand from all over the country that the permission he extended for another year.
Oleomargarine is being used as a food in almost every part of the world. I do not know of any country at the present time that restricts its manufacture and use.
I think it is generally admitted that it possesses food value. It can never be considered to be equal to butter of good quality. However the best oleo is perhaps as good as some brands of butter that are sold in the market. There is no comparison as a spread for bread or use in other ways on the table between our best grades of butter and oleo, and oleo will never, in my opin- * ion, enter into competition with first-class dairy or creamery butter.
All oleo manufactured in the country is made under the closest possible inspection which is carried on in our packing houses under the Meat and Canned Foods Act, so that all ingredients aTe of good quality. One of the greatest objections to the sale of oleo in this country is its misrepresentation as butter when given to the consumer. It is proposed during tihe year to introduce such regulations as will make this much more difficult particularly in connection with the sale of oleo for butter in restaurants and similar places. Under the present Act it is necessary to hang up a card in any restaurant or hoarding house bearing the words "Oleomargarine served here." This is not always complied with, and it is the intention of the department to use every possible means to more carefully police the use of oleo than has been done in the past. .In addition to this, ithe increased fine will, I think, prove very useful in restricting the fraudulent traffic in oleomargarine. It is also proposed to have the word "oleo" printed directly into each package of oleomargarine sold.

At the present time we have two firms manufacturing oleo in Canada, the Harris Abattoir Company of Toronto, and the Swift Canadian Company with factories at Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton. The place occupied by oleomargarine in the commerce of the country is indicated by the following figures:
Pounds.
Oleomargarine manufactured in Canada to date since the Act came into
force	 18,358,046
Imported during three months to
March 31, 1918	 2,262,514
Imported during twelve months ending March 31, 1919	 4,217,916
Imported during ten months of 1920	5,237,803
Imported in February, 1920	 353,054
This shoiws that there has been a steady
increase in the quantity. A comparison of the prices of butter and oleo gives the following results:
Nine brands of butter, average 72.55c. lb. retail.
Fourteen brands animal oleo, average 44.21c. lb. retail.
Eleven brands vegetable oleo, average 39.27c. lb. retail.
The following is a statement of creamery butter manufactured in Canada:
Pounds.
1917		 87,526,939
1918		 93,266,876
1919		 98,903,686
showing that during the period in which oleo has been sold there has been a steady increase in the production of creamery butter. It is estimated as against this that the butter production in creameries and dairies during the year 1919 will have amounted to 223,903,686 pounds. It is quite apparent then that oleo so far has not injured the manufacture of butter or the butter business. When we take into consideration the high price of cows, the very high price of feeds used in the dairies, and the scarcity and high price of labour, it is not reasonable to expect that butter will be rapidly reduced in price. I might say also that there is a very stiff demand for the produce of the dairy, not only in the form of fresh milk but also in the form of condensed milk, cream and milk powder, as well as for the manufacture of ice cream and other such products.
Mr. OOCKSH'UTT: Could the minister give us the amount of duty collected on the oleomargarine imported?
Mr. TOLMilE: Oleomargarine is imported free, I understand. There are certain changes taking place in connection with the manufacture of oleo. While it has been largely manufactured from animal oils in the past, vegetable oils are now being used

to a very much greater extent, and most, or nearly all, of these are imported. It is expected by some of the experts whom I have consulted in connection with this matter that vegetable oils, being produced very much cheaper than animal oils, will ultimately take the place of the animal oils used in the manufacture of oleo.


Mr. LALOOR:: Could the minister give us any idea of the quantity of oleomargarine manufactured in Canada?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The quantity manufactured in Canada since the Act came into force is 18,358,046 pounds.


Mr. ROBB:: Do the component parts of oleomargarine come in duty free as well as the manufactured product?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is what I understand, at the present time. Now so far as the extension of time is concerned, it appears that the condition that prevailed when the Act was first passed to offset the high price of butter still obtains. Oleo is used to a very great extent by large numbers of poor people in the large cities and also in the country, and I consider that at the present time it is advisable to at least extend the Act for one year, and during that period to watch very carefully what measure might be adopted to put down the fraudulent use of oleo as butter. It is the intention of the department during that period to accumulate from other countries as much information as possible as to what is being done along this line, and to do their very best to apply this Act rigidly.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: While I am willing to accept as correct the minister's statement that there is in this country at the present time a considerable demand from a number of our people for the extension of this privilege for the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, and while I am prepared to agree that the press of the country generally take the view that we should continue to allow its importation and manufacture, I may say that I am not very much moved by the opinions of the press in regard to the matter. I do not believe there has been in Canada in the last quarter of a century any time when the press might be regarded as less reliable than it is at the present time.


Thomas Vien: Since 1917.


John Wesley Edwards: I feel.it my duty, Mr. Chairman, representing a constituency which is very deeply interested in dairying,

to protest against any further extension of the time for the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. In entering this protest I have the support of the National Dairying Association of Canada-which comprises the provincial Dairymens' Associations of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island-the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association; the Milk Powder Manufacturers; the Canadian Creamery Association; the Milk Condensers; the Canadian Milk Distributors' Association, the Milk Shippers' Associations of the districts of Montreal and Bedford, Que.; the Dairymens' Association of the province of Quebec; the Dairymens' Association of Eastern and Western Ontario; and the Milk and Cream Producers' Association. In other words, the dairymen from one end of Canada to the other, and in every province of the Dominion, have placed themselves on record as opposed to a further continuation of the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. They believe-and in my judgment have good reason to believe- that the use of this so-called substitute for butter will have a very bad effect upon dairying; and they have a right to ask that this House give special and favourable consideration to their appeal in regard to their industry-an industry which has hundreds of millions of dollars of capital invested in it, an industry which probably affects more people than any other industry in the Dominion that you could name; and an industry which pays out millions of dollars in one way or another, and is very closely associated with the progress and prosperity of agriculture in Canada.
I must say that I take exception to one reason given by the minister for continuing to allow the introduction into and the manufacture in Canada of oleomargarine. The reason given was the same as that embodied by the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) in the Order in Council of the 10th December, 1917, which permitted the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. The statement then made by the minister as the reason for permitting this privilege was the scarcity of butter and of those fats which are essential to the upbuilding of a healthy body. I wish to submit, Mr. Chairman, that the reason given is not strictly in accordance with the facts as I understand them. That statement might have been based on very good grounds probably in the year 1915, because in that year-as the figures show-we did not produce a sufficient amount of butter in Canada to feed our own population, and
we had to import over a million pounds of butter in order to satisfy the needs of the Canadian people.
In 1916 the argument might also have been used, because in that year we fell behind in the butter needs of our people by about 800,000 pounds. But up to December 10, 1917, when the Order in Council was passed permitting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, the records show, we had produced not only a sufficient amount of butter to satisfy the needs of our own population but an exportable surplus of pretty nearly 7,000,000 pounds. So at that time there was no scarcity of butter and of those fats which it is claimed, and properly so, are essential to health.
It has also been claimed that another reason for this Order in Council was the high price of butter. Well, at the time the Order was passed on December 10, 1917, the price of butter was 40 cents a pound, and we permitted the importation of oleomargarinej which was sold at from 32 to 34 cents a pound. The argument therefore for permitting the introduction of oleomargarine was that our poor people could not find the other 6 cents to buy a pound of butter. I ask hon. members if they think that is in accordance with the facts? In 1917, it is true, the cost of living was rising, but there was plenty of work at high wages, and I ventured the assertion that there never was a time in the history of Canada when it was easier for the poor man to find the money necessary to buy a pound of butter than on the tenth of December, 1917.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Have you any record of
the export price of butter at that time?


John Wesley Edwards: I know the price of
butter on the date I mention was 40 cents a pound, and I presume that might be taken as a criterion of the price in other places. But the argument was that our poor people could not find the extra 6 cents a pound for butter; therefore they should be allowed to buy oleomargarine. If our poor people could not afford to pay 40 cents a pound for butter in 1917, how is it possible that they can to-day afford to pay 45 cents a pound for oleomargarine? That is the situation at the present time. What is the next move to be made if our poor people cannot afford to buy oleomargarine to provide the fats required for the proper nourishment of their bodies? Will an attempt be made to provide than with oils so that they may take their fats in liquid form?

I do not think there was any real ground foi the argument that there was a scarcity of butter in 1917, for our exports contradict such an argument; and it is not the case now, because our exports of butter from 1915 on to the present time have been increasing year by year, until last year we exported, in round numbers, something over
14,000,000 pounds. We cannot reasonably bring forward the plea of a scarcity of butter as a reason for allowing the continued importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. And in regard to the inability of the poor man to find the money necessary to buy a pound of butter in 1917 at 40 cents a pound, how can he find 45 cents a pound to-day to buy a pound of oleomargarine?


Peter McGibbon: What was the production of butter for exportation in 1914 and 1915?


John Wesley Edwards: I will give the imports and exports. In 1914 our imports were 7,317,259, our exports 1,228,753; in 1915 our imports were 6,822,540, our exports 2,724,913; in 1916 our imports were 4,309,831, our exports 3,441,183 pounds.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is that an argument in
favour of free trade?


John Wesley Edwards: You can take it as
you like. It will be noticed from the figures I have given that our imports in each of those three years steadily decreased and our exports steadily increased. But in those three years our imports were greater than our exports, and showed that we did not produce enough butter to satisfy our home requirements. So the argument might have been put forward then that the scarcity of butter was a good reason for allowing the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. But in 1917 our imports dropped from the millions to 922,335 pounds, while our exports increased to 7,990,435 pounds. So that in 1917 when this Order in Council was passed we had, as I have already stated, a surplus over and above our home requirements of about
7.000.	000 pounds, and we had to find purchasers for that surplus in some twenty world markets.
Since the Order in Council was passed, as the hon. minister has stated, we have manufactured over 18,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine and we have imported over
12.000.	000 pounds, and that is equivalent to saying that pretty nearly 30,500,000 pounds of oleomargarine have been used to replace the product of our dairymen.

If that figure is compared with the figures representing our exportation of butter, it will be found that the 30,500,000 pounds of oleomargarine has practically replaced about the same amount of butter and forced our dairymen to hunt all over God's creation to find a market for their surplus butter.
What reasons have been given for allowing the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine? No person would for a moment argue that we can build up the dairy industry by permitting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. The minister himself very properly says that you cannot regard oleomargarine as a substitute for first-class butter. I cannot conceive of any action more illogical than that of the Government in permitting the free importation into Canada of oleomargarine and of the fats and oils which enter into its manufacture. Every government since Confederation has recognized the right of Canadian dairymen to have a certain amount of protection, and every fiscal policy of all these governments has maintained a duty on butter imported into this country of four cents a pound. Is it logical to assume to protect the dairy interests by imposing a duty upon butter and at the same time to permit the free importation of oleomargarine for use as a substitute for butter? It is unfair; it is most unreasonable.
In the United States they have established a standard in respect of all oleomargarine manufactured in that country. The percentages of the ingredients must be as follows: oleo oil, 34.26 per cent; constituents of milk, 28.09 per cent; neutral lard, 16.27 per cent; cottonseed oil, 14.26 per cent; salt, 7.12 per cent. In Canada we have absolutely no standard, except that the oleomargarine must not contain more than 16 per cent of water. Moreover, we impose heavy penalties on any person who mixes some other substance with butter and then sells that article as butter. You may not mix oleomargarine with butter and sell the article as butter; you are liable to a heavy penalty if you do. But you may mix all the butter you like with oleomargarine; "there is no restriction so far as that is concerned. A few days ago it was stated in the House that fifteen or sixteen people had been fined for selling oleomargarine as butter, most of the prosecutions having been taken during the last twelve months.
I see in that list the name of one person from my section of the country who bad

been selling from 150 to 200 pounds of oleomargarine every week to the unsuspecting public as butter. He was fined $50 for that fraud. But why should he be fined? If oleomargarine is just as good as butter, where is the contamination in mixing oleo with butter? Yet those who advocate the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine say it is just as good as butter. We take mighty good care to protect people who would not eat oleomargarine on a bet. If you have the money with which to buy butter, you want to be certain that you get good butter; therefore we take precautions to prevent any person from mixing with butter this stuff which is said to be just as good as butter, in order that we may be sure that the article which we buy as butter is butter and nothing else. But you can mix all the oleomargarine you like with butter.


Mr. M. CLARK:: Does not the question of price enter into my hon. friend's argument?


John Wesley Edwards: I have referred to the question of price. It is true that the price of butter is higher than the price of oleomargarine, but I believe that for no article of food that goes on any man's table does he get as good value as that which he gets for the money that he pays for a pound of butter.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend does not quite catch my point. You do not rob the consumer by giving him a higher priced article along with the lower one; that is, by giving him butter along with his oleomargarine. But on the mere question of price you rob him if you give him oleomargarine along with butter.


John Wesley Edwards: He is being robbed by the sale of this oleomargarine. Our experience here is the same as the experience of the United States and of every other country where this stuff has been used. There is a great temptation to the retailer who is handling this stuff to sell it as butter. The statistics show that out of an annual consumption of about 500,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine in the United States, only about 92,000,000 pounds were actually sold as oleomargarine; the rest was sold as butter. The oleo is coloured, a certain amount of cream or milk or butter is mixed with it, to give it the "creamy flavour" and the "butter taste," as they say in their advertisements. That is all done to deceive the public, and the public are deceived. A farmer comes along to his village grocer with ten pounds of good butter. The grocer buys the butter at 60 cents a pound and expects to sell it at 65. He sends an order to Harris' or to Swift's for 100 pounds of oleomargarine done up in bricks, looking like butter, flavoured so as to taste like butter; and he places that on his shelf alongside the butter that he got from the farmer. He has bought that oleo at a price which enables him to sell it at a price of 45 cents a pound. A customer comes in and asks for a pound of butter. If that dealer can sell to the customer one of these bricks of oleo at 65 cents, instead of 45 cents, and let him go away thinking it is butter, he has made a good, big profit. That has been done. There have already been prosecutions in the country. What for? Because people were doing that very thing. The authorities in the United States have done everything they could to try and stop it. They have put an excise tax of 10 cents a pound on coloured oleomargarine, and i of a cent a pound on the uncoloured. The idea was to protect the makers of butter, but it does not seem to have made that effect. There have been prosecutions by the score in the United States and in the Old Country, and we are getting them here in Canada. I really believe that in this country fully 50 per cent of the oleomargarine that is sold to the public is sold as butter, and at the price of butter. Talk about robbing the people ! Why is it that oleomargarine is selling from 40 to 45 cents a pound in Canada, while you can buy it in England at 26 cents? Are they losing money on it in the Old Country at 26 cents? I do not think so. If they are not losing money on it at that price, it is clear that the people here are taking 14 cents more per pound out of the pockets of the public than they should take. The whole thing is in the interests of one or two people who are manufacturing this stuff, and of those who live in tropical countries and are interested in the sale ol these vegetable oils.
Referring again to the argument that the importation of oleomargarine was permitted because butter was scarce and high in price in this country, I have already said that the Order in Council was put through on the 10th of December, 1917. The price of butter at that time was 40 cents a pound. On January 21, 1918, the price was 44i cents, on the 4th of March 471 cents, and on the 26th of March 49 cents. These figures were quoted by the hon. member (Mr. Crerar) to indicate that notwithstanding the Order in Council permitting the

importation of oleomargarine, the price of butter had increased. The price of butter went up a little as it always does at that season of the year. Oleomargarine at that time was selling at from 32 to 34 cents. In the month of October, 1917, butter was selling at 45 cents, in November it dropped to 41 cents, and in December was down to 40 cents. Why? Because the cheese factories had closed, and there was a greater amount of milk going into the manufacture of butter. That happens every year. No [DOT] person will claim, I think, that a farmer or a dairyman would make as much money selling butter at 49 cents in March as he would make selling it at 41 cents in November.
I have given some figures on the importation and exportation of butter showing that we have a surplus of that article in this country. Taking the stocks of dairy produce in Montreal and comparing the 31st of March of this year with the 31st of March last year, we find that there was held dn stock at Montreal, ready for export I presume, 6,780 packages of butter last year as compared with 24,383 packages this year. That shows that our dairymen are experiencing some difficulty in finding ready markets for their surplus product, which accounts for these stocks accumulating, and the figures indicate very clearly that they are accumulating.
I do not know why this favour should be granted to these people who are interested in the manufacture o,f oleomargarine -because it is a favour to them. It is a favour to the manufacturers who are making large sums of money out of it, and a favour of these people who are interested in the sale of these vegetable oils which enter into the manufacture of oleomargarine. The United States last year obtained a revenue of over- 81,250,000 from their tax on oleomargarine. We obtained nothing, because we had no taxation on it in any shape or form. I do not think there is anything which has so great a bearing on the prosperity of the farmer as the keeping of cattle. A farmer to be prosperous must maintain the fertility of his soil, and the keeping of cattle has that effect. I do not think any person who gives the matter any study can claim, having regard to the capital invested, and the amount of time and labour expended in the production of butter, that the farmers or dairymen are getting too high a price for their butter today. It can be easily shown, and has been shown in this House on former occasions, that from the standpoint of food value but-

ter at 65 cents a pound is a very much cheaper article of food than beefsteak at 35 cents a pound.


Mr. MAHARG:: How does that compare with the food value of oleomargarine?


John Wesley Edwards: I was going to say that I did not consider oleomargarine had any food value at all, but perhaps that would be too strong a statement.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend has very little respect for his own minister, who gave very high figures as to the food value of oleomargarine.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think it lies in the mouth of my hon. friend to say whether I have little respect for the minister or not.
I have a great deal more respect for the Minister of Agriculture than I have for the hon. member for Red Deer.


Michael Clark: I should have said, very little respect for the minister's argument.


John Wesley Edwards: I have every respect for the Minister of Agriculture, and I can thoroughly appreciate the reasons actuating him and the Government in proposing an extension of time. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I believed there were a large number of people in this country who were asking for the continuation of this privilege, and evidently the Minister of Agriculture and the Government think so, or they would ' not be taking the steps they are taking. But the people of my constituency and the dairymen of this country, and a large number of my constituents are interested in the dairy business, are opposed to the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, and I am here to represent the dairymen and farmers of the county of Frontenac. That I propose to do. Whether my view prevails or not is another question. I shall at all events do what I consider to be my duty.
I am somewhat surprised at the attitude taken by some members who come from city constituencies. It is probably true that quite a number of hon. gentlemen living in those constituencies want to have the privilege of buying oleomargarine, but we have hon. members who are very deeply interested in certain lines of manufacture. Those hon. gentlemen come mostly from city constituencies and the plea they put forward is the great item of expenditure which the poor man has to face if he wants to have butter. They say that he is not able to raise money to buy butter, and it grieves their souls to think that the poor man should be so circumstanced. They therefore

say that as he cannot afford to buy butter he ought to be allowed to buy oleomargarine, which costs much less. With great disinterestedness they base their arguments on the poor man's necessity. If we were to propose to some of these same gentlemen who are interested in certain lines of manufacture the removal of the protection which is granted to their particular industries, and to suggest that they should come into competition with producers of cheaper articles throughout the world, there would not, I imagine, be so much consideration for the poor man then. And yet I might argue, from the standpoint of the farmers of' the county of Frontenac, that perhaps we might reduce the amount which city people have to pay for certain manufactured articles, and thereby save to them enough money to enable them to buy farmer's butter. I might legitimately use that argument, and I therefore throw out this hint to hon. gentlemen who come from city constituencies-


William Foster Cockshutt: All right.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, my hon. friend
from Brantfdrd (Mr. Cockshutt) is one of them. I was going to say that I throw this hint out to them, that the time is coming when these gentlemen will give some consideration to industries that have millions upon millions of dollars of capital tied .up in them. The time is coming when these gentlemen will give those industries the same consideration that they ask for their own industries, which have far less capital tied up in them and in the success of which fewer people are interested.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is a good threat.


John Wesley Edwards: Very well, you may take it as a threat if you wish, and I shall not quarrel with you.


William Foster Cockshutt: You are making for a fight.


John Wesley Edwards: If I am making for a
fight, I suppose my hon. friend, who is of a kindly disposition, will accommodate me; I would be surprised if he would not. I want to say before I conclude that in my judgment the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine was a mistake from the very first. It never should have been permitted, and it should not be allowed to rontinue at the present time. Other countries like Sweden and Australia are taking special steps to protect their dairy and allied industries, and in Sweden the dairymen are urging the Government to pass special legislation to protect their industries. I therefore think it unfair to the farmers and dairy-114
men of Canada that they should be obliged to submit to having their own product driven out of the country and forced to seek markets all over the world. I do not think hon. gentlemen who come from city constituencies, like, my hon. friend from Brantford, really appreciate the fact that the dairymen and farmers of the country have invested millions of dollars in building barns and stables and have to attend to their stock for five or six months in the year before they can get returns; nor do I think they appreciate the amount of time, labour and skill expended in the dairy industry. If they did, their attitude in this matter would be different. I can of course only protest as one member against the further extension of time in regard to the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, and I do so believing that I am only discharging my duty to my constituents.


William Stevens Fielding: I see the gleam of debate in the eyes of hon. gentlemen, and I may be tempted myself to make a few observations on the subject under consideration. May I therefore suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that as the hour is late, and as it is not possible that we can conclude the debate to-night, he move that we report progress?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have much pleasure in accepting the suggestion of my hon. friend, and I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to: progress reported.
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House adjourned at 11.24 p.m.
Thursday, April 29, 1920.